Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

International Criminal Court

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Vaz.]

Ms Oona King: I am immensely honoured to have the opportunity to initiate this debate on the International Criminal Court, which represents nothing less than mankind's efforts to outlaw gross atrocities: crimes against humanity. It also represents 150 years of evolution in international humanitarian law. Above all, it represents the recognition that having laws alone is just not good enough: we must have the means of enforcing those laws.
So far, 89 countries have signed the statute of the International Criminal Court, which was passed on 17 July 1998 in Rome. As soon as 60 of those countries have ratified the treaty, the ICC will be established. It will be the first permanent institution dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of individuals for breaches of international humanitarian law. However, to understand the ICC's significance, we have to understand the context in which it has developed. I should therefore like briefly to mention some of the milestones preceding its establishment.
The first real codification of war crimes was the 1864 Geneva convention on care of the wounded. From about 1900, international humanitarian law evolved more quickly, especially with the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions on the laws and customs of war on land. The customs of war have changed, and the Select Committee on International Development, of which I am a member, has published several reports on that. It is increasingly civilians who are wounded, and often in internal, not external, acts of aggression.
The horrors of the first world war led to new treaties on wounded soldiers and on the use of gas and bacteriological weapons. The first attempts to establish an International Criminal Court were also made in that period, but they were stillborn. International humanitarian law began to gain ground after the second world war, when there was a groundswell of opinion favouring prosecution of the leaders of the defeated powers. The charter of the international military tribunal of 1945 represents the establishment of the first temporary international criminal court.
The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals tried three classes of crime: war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. The genocide convention, in 1948, was

the first of the post-war conventions on international humanitarian law, and defined genocide as an attempt to destroy
in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such".
The genocide convention also gave a name to what Churchill described, in this Chamber, as a "crime with no name".
The 1949 Geneva conventions on conduct of armed conflict, with additional protocols in 1972, codified war crimes and specified that, for the first time, internal as well as international and external conflicts were covered by law. Crimes against humanity were defined under separate conventions, such as the torture convention of 1984.
All those conventions have universal jurisdiction, which is a central point in the argument that has, finally, ensured establishment of the International Criminal Court. Universal jurisdiction acknowledges the fact that such crimes are so grave that their commission may be tried in any country, regardless of where the perpetrator comes from or where the crimes are committed. As the Pinochet case has shown, not even sovereign immunity overrides the principle of universal jurisdiction. There must be no hiding place, no safe haven, for anyone who has committed crimes against humanity.
I have repeated the words "crimes against humanity" several times already in my speech, and hope that hon. Members will consider what they mean when they are translated into action. I shall detain the House with no more than one brief description.
I shall never forget going to E1 Salvador in 1986, at the height of its civil war, and hearing of one of the crimes against humanity being perpetrated there, involving pregnant women, rats and metal boxes. A rat was place on a pregnant woman's stomach inside a metal box, which was heated from above. When the heat became so intense that the rat was forced to try to burrow out of the box, it did so through the pregnant woman's stomach.
I have described that crime in a little detail because words can be very dry and may not convey the horror of the crimes that they describe. I am certain that there would be no controversy on either side of the House about the need to ensure that we do not allow people responsible for such crimes to escape.
Despite the large body of existing humanitarian law, the 1990s have seen continued breaches, including ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda and mass murder in East Timor. However, those atrocities have coincided with an unprecedented willingness at international level to bring people to justice and a dawning realisation that it is possible to do so. The first step was the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague. Next came the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. Switzerland, which is often ahead of the game, has tried and convicted a Rwandan citizen for crimes committed in Rwanda during the genocide in 1994.
However, the successful prosecutions are the exceptions that prove the rule, which, thus far, has been that international humanitarian law is not enforced. Thousands of crimes have been committed and many of the criminals are now in third countries, including here in Britain. I know of people thought to be guilty of such


crimes. In my constituency, I have taken an interest in cases involving alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Bangladesh during the war of independence and in Rwanda.
Under universal jurisdiction, third countries, including Britain, should be trying such cases, but that is not happening. There has been only one trial under the War Crimes Act 1991, which refers specifically to crimes committed during the second world war. That has been the only trial in this country for grave breaches of international humanitarian law, although there is little doubt that such criminals have been, and continue to be, in this country.
That failure on our part is reflected throughout the world, but it does not square with an ethical foreign policy. However, under the current Government, Britain has been one of the most proactive states in trying to establish the International Criminal Court. Respect and praise are due for that.
The need for an International Criminal Court remains, because we have to bridge the gap between what a state promises that it will do and what it practises. The law exists, but it is not used. We can see that with the genocide convention, which took almost 50 years to the day to have its first success.
Under the principle of complementarity, which is central to the ICC, the primary responsibility for prosecution of breaches of international humanitarian law remains with the state parties. I must underline that, because some commentators and critics of the concept of an International Criminal Court have said that they worry that it might erode sovereignty. One of the most important points is that the ICC will be able to take on a case only if a state has been unable or unwilling to take it on itself and is already in breach of laws that it has signed up to. The ICC will not be rifling through the files of the Ministry of Defence or demanding the indictment of Cabinet Ministers and senior officers. It is not an international FBI.
By the same token, the ICC will not, unfortunately, be able to catch, try and convict every war criminal, torturer or genocidaire in the world—not even a significant minority of them. Let us be realistic about that. However, it will be able to oversee the development of international humanitarian law, try cases that come its way and add another hurdle in the path of criminals who have all too often felt that they can act with impunity despite—and sometimes because of—the magnitude of their crimes.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Before the hon. Lady leaves this part of her excellent speech, will she agree to add a further item to the list of benefits of an International Criminal Court? Any such trials that have taken place, from Nuremberg onwards, have shown beyond peradventure that the war crimes were carried out, so that subsequent revisionists cannot get away with claiming that the acts never happened.

Ms King: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which has not been lost on the House, where we recently remembered holocaust day. One reason why we have got to this stage is the Nuremberg trials. I entirely agree with him.
Because we have not yet ratified the ICC treaty, we might be letting slip some of the good progress that we have made. Let us not forget that the United Kingdom was at the forefront of negotiations in Rome and UK negotiators were instrumental in ensuring—this is an important point—that mass rape and other forced sexual crimes were included in the statute's definitions of crimes against humanity. The British Government are also credited with helping to secure compromises on some of the more esoteric but no less important matters of jurisdiction or definition. UK negotiators remain active in the preparatory committees now considering the rules of evidence for the court and the definition of the crime of aggression.
The Government have made several statements to the effect that we intend and hope to be among the first 60 states to sign. Four have already done so, including Italy, and many of our European partners are expected to do so soon. I hope that we shall not miss a chance to show our European partner France that we shall be quicker than them in upholding international law. If we fail to be among the first 60, we will lose influence over the critical early functioning of the administration of the court, including its financial administration. It would also be a poor indication of the seriousness with which we take our obligations under the international humanitarian law conventions that we have already signed.
The international community requires moral leadership on the issue, and I expect our Labour Government to show it. I shall be bitterly disappointed if we do not. I do not expect to be disappointed, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister—I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his elevation—and other Foreign Office Ministers take their obligations seriously. I understand that it is impossible to say exactly when a Bill will reach the House, particularly when it includes such major legal issues. However, I should like two reassurances from my hon. Friend.
First, I hope that the Government will not seek either of the opt-outs available under the statute. Article 124 says that a state can opt out of jurisdiction for seven years and article 98 leaves the door open for bilateral agreements allowing individuals to evade extradition. I would welcome reassurance about those opt-outs.
Secondly, I would welcome an indication of the date by which the Government intend to publish draft legislation and of the manner in which they intend to consult on the issue. If the Government could speed up the process, other countries might be prompted to ratify quickly and hence remove boltholes for today's and tomorrow's criminals.
My penultimate point relates to cost. Of course the court involves cost which, given America's intransigence on the issue, must be taken into account. It will be financed from three sources: assessed contributions by state parties, United Nations contributions approved by the General Assembly and voluntary contributions. Cost represents a reason to ratify sooner rather than later so that an undue burden does not fall upon the states that have ratified. Costs are attached to any legal system because the rule of law always has a price tag, but it is a price that any democrat should be prepared to pay. Ultimately, it is a bargain because we spend more on trying to clear up the mess caused by the people who will be brought into the dock than on ensuring that justice is done.
Finally, I am disappointed that the court will not be functioning in time for the millennium, but I am delighted that the Government have been so proactive. I hope that they continue to take a proactive approach. We should recognise that early ratification by ourselves and others will make sure that the court is the first international institution to be born in the new millennium. What better gift could today's politicians bequeath tomorrow's generation?

Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on her good fortune in being selected to initiate today's debate on the International Criminal Court. It is a timely debate and I hope that the Minister and the Government were listening carefully. It is more than 51 years since the idea was first discussed in the United Nations Assembly, which passed resolution 260 in December 1948, but we are not very much nearer the establishment of such a court. In the intervening time, there have been various committees and courts of the International Legal Commission, all of which have produced reports and ideas of fine words and sentiments, but until November 1998, no concrete proposals were forthcoming.
From time to time, there have been ad hoc international criminal tribunals. The hon. Lady mentioned the most recent ones, which were set up in The Hague to deal with the problems in the former Yugoslavia and the horrific activities in Rwanda. Those ad hoc bodies are fine as far as they go, but one has only to consider the Rwanda case to see their limitations. The Rwanda tribunal can deal only with offences committed in 1994. Other offences were committed in Rwanda outside that 12-month period, and the court can do nothing about them.
I do not wish to belittle the work of the ad hoc tribunals as they have done a great deal and there is still much to do. I should also praise the work of the Bar of England and Wales, which has sent British barristers to work as prosecutors and to train lawyers in Africa and has trained those appearing in The Hague in the work that is so necessary to achieve justice. However, I urge the Government to get their skates on and do something more than simply signing the statute of Rome, as they did last year.
Throughout history, most perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity have gone unpunished. Despite the military tribunals following the second world war and the two recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals, the same holds true for this century. Most perpetrators of atrocities on a national or international scale clearly believed that their crimes would go unpunished, and they have largely been correct. Very few criminals of that calibre have ever been brought to justice. One has only to think of Cambodia, where Pol Pot died in his bed and not in prison. There are criticisms that the Nuremberg trials that took place after the second world war were selective justice and there will no doubt be similar criticisms of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. To return to my example of Cambodia, unless we have a permanent International Criminal Court, the criticism of selective justice will continue to be made.
I know that criticisms have been made of the stand taken by the United States in relation to signing the statute and its lack of support for the establishment of an

International Criminal Court. However, being rude about the United States will not achieve much. Instead of allowing their supporters and others to be rude about the United States, the Government should take the initiative.
I hope that I am establishing for the record what the Conservative party believes by quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when she questioned the Foreign Secretary when he made a statement on the International Criminal Court. She said:
By creating an International Criminal Court, we hope that we can move towards a more humane and peaceful world in which there is no sanctuary for the despot, the dictator, or the depraved."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 806.]
She was right then and the Government would be right now if they did a little more to push for the ratification of the statute.
The Government should not allow themselves to be drawn into a sense of complacency and self-satisfaction. We are one of the first nations to have signed the statute, but only four countries have ratified it. The hon. Lady mentioned Italy. The other three are no doubt worthy nations, but they are not in the first rank of international power. I urge the Government to get on and lead by example. Unless we do, all sorts of other less powerful and influential states that look to the permanent five will also lag behind.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a two-track strategy whereby we speed up ratification but also put polite pressure on larger powers to ratify would be appropriate?

Mr. Garnier: I am sure that it would. I am not suggesting that we should not put diplomatic or other pressure on China, for example, which sent its president here last week. I sincerely hope that our Prime Minister, when he was not entertaining the President of China, found an opportunity to remind him of the need for it to become one of the signatories to—not to mention ratifiers of—the statute of Rome. I trust that we have a sufficiently good relationship with the United States under this and any future presidency for the Government and their successors to be able to put pressure on the US to sign and ratify the statute; but unless we get on and do it ourselves, our arguments will have less force.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I wholeheartedly agree with the points that my hon. and learned Friend is making. Does he agree that it is a great shame that, in the negotiations at Rome, where our team and others bent over backwards to try to assuage the fears of the USA—and the document that was produced consequently contained substantial legal flaws—the USA ultimately felt that it could not join the countries that signed up? Should not the Government make every effort on every occasion to meet US officials and try to persuade them that their fears can be accommodated so that they can be brought within the ambit of the statute? Without the USA, Israel, China and India, the job will not be done.

Mr. Garnier: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, as I did when she asked the Foreign Secretary a question in response to his statement in July 1998. I urge the Government to listen carefully to her, as I have done.
There is certainly a general feeling of warmth towards the establishment of an International Criminal Court, but the problem is how to translate that warmth into activity.
Only seven of the 127 countries represented in Rome voted against the establishment of the ICC. China and the United States were two among them. The US based its decision on its fears that US service personnel stationed abroad might be subject to malicious prosecution. Our service personnel are often stationed abroad—indeed, about half our armed forces are overseas at any one time—as are those of other NATO countries, but the United States is the only NATO state that failed to sign the statute. Strong diplomatic pressure is required.
My main concern about the statute and the thinking behind it is that, while 60 countries will have to ratify before the court can be established, only four have so far done so, and our Government say that they cannot tell us when the necessary legislation will be introduced because it is terribly complicated. Legislation is frequently complicated but Governments have not always used that as an excuse for not introducing it. Reform of the House of Lords is complicated but that is being pushed through, as other Labour Government legislation has been that could easily be described as complicated. If the Government had the will, the complications could be dealt with.

Mr. Mike Gapes: May I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to column 805 in the written answers in yesterday's Hansard, where the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) says that the problem is parliamentary time? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could have a word with his colleagues in the other place so that we get more parliamentary time and can ratify as soon as possible.

Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman can save the House parliamentary time by not supporting a Bill to ban fox hunting, we will no doubt have plenty of time to deal with more serious matters.

Mrs. Gillan: Has my hon. and learned Friend had a chance to look at some of the papers before the preparatory committee? I came across the disturbing information that for the statute to come into force the number of ratifications required, previously five to 65, had moved to 25 to 90. Has he any comment on that moving of the goalposts and the barriers that are being put in the way of the court at every stage?

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. It underlines the point that, if our Government lead by example, others may follow.
It is not only Conservative Members who are urging the Government to press ahead with the legislation. The Foreign Affairs Committee did so in its first report. The then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), said:
We intend that the UK should be among the first sixty States to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Legislation will be necessary before we can proceed to ratification. We will introduce such legislation as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 418.]
I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) that another answer has been published today; one appeared on 20 October from the

new Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), saying that legislation would be introduced as soon as time allows. It is for the Government to control their own programme. They know how to make the time. The Queen's Speech is on 17 November, and I sincerely hope that we shall find reference in it to the relevant legislation.

Mr. Douglas Alexander: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the challenge of ratification extends beyond this country, as only four other countries plan to ratify within their coming parliamentary years?

Mr. Garnier: I would not disagree with that for a moment. I repeat my mantra: the sooner we do it, the sooner others may do it as well.
I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new position. It is always a joy to see one's parliamentary neighbours getting on in the world. I sincerely hope, in the nicest possible way, that his new job in the Foreign Office keeps him a long way from Leicester and Leicestershire for most of the parliamentary year. No doubt he will receive the typical Leicester welcome when he gets back to his constituency from time to time.
Niceties apart, I urge the Government to introduce legislation to allow us to ratify the statute in order to realise their intention that we should be among the first 60 states to do so, especially as it is more than a year since the Foreign Secretary said that ratification would not be a swift or fast-track process and that the legislation would be complex. All legislation has the capacity to be complex and I wish that we could get on with it more speedily.
The Minister will be aware of the consensus that it is most important that the major states, and especially the permanent members of the Security Council, show their support for the court. Will he comment on the most effective means by which we can put pressure on the United States to participate? There must be some easy way of assuaging its fears about malicious prosecution of its service personnel.
Does the Minister agree that, given that 60 states have to ratify before the court can be set up and that there has been so little progress so far, the likely timetable for establishment is about 50 years? I will be long dead by then, and I—and, I hope, the Minister—would like to be alive when the court is established. I look forward to an encouraging response.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that this debate is very short and that short speeches would be appreciated. That will allow more Members to speak.

Mr. Tony Colman: I start by declaring an interest, in that I am a member of the drafting committee of Charter 99, the charter for global democracy that was launched on United Nations day, last Sunday.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on obtaining this debate, which is extremely fortuitous in reminding Ministers of the


importance of the ratification of the statute in this coming Session. My hon. Friend said that France is due to ratify the statute this week, and I understand that Germany will ratify it before the end of the year. I heard this morning that, during the past few days, President Clinton has made a positive speech about ratification. I urge all hon. Members with influence in Congress to use it, perhaps through the British-American parliamentary group seeking a meeting with Trent Lott, so that he can take the matter forward on the Republican side in the United States.
My hon. Friend mentioned the antecedents of the work in Rome last year. I wish to refer also to the Commission on Global Governance, which was set up by Willy Brandt and was co-chaired by the ex-Commonwealth Secretary-General Sonny Ramphal. It met between 1992 and 1995 and had wide membership, including, from this country, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the noble Lord Judd and Brian Urquhart.
"Our Global Neighbourhood" was published in 1995 and contained strong recommendations that supported the International Criminal Court. This September, Patsy Robertson—who is in charge of taking forward the work of the commission—met with Titus Alexander of the Westminster UNA, Peter Luff of the Royal Commonwealth Society and others, including Anthony Barnett, of Charter 88, to take forward the agenda of ratification of the statute.
Last Sunday—UN day—saw the launch of Charter 99. I urge all hon. Members who have not obtained copies nor signed the document to support it. It is an extremely important initiative, and one of the 12 points aimed at taking the agenda forward is the ratification of the statute.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) suggested other areas of influence. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting takes places in about four weeks' time in Durban. I hope that the Minister will be able to support the idea that, within the discussion of the review of the Harare declaration—which concerns crimes against humanity—ratification of the statute could be taken forward. The work done by our parliamentary counsel and in the preparatory committee could be shared with our Commonwealth partners.
I am proud of the Government's ethical foreign policy, and I believe strongly that ratification in the coming Session is a key part of that policy. I suggest that the millennium United Nations General Assembly next September would be a good point to ensure ratification, so that we can announce to the people of the world that this country has ratified early and has led the way in ensuring that the International Criminal Court can come into existence for the year 2000.

Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for her initiative in proposing this important debate. She will not like everything I say, but not everyone always does.
I had not expected to be a witness to war crimes and genocide in my time and in my continent. I was, and that left a deep impression on me. From that, I came to the conclusion that there surely had to be just such a jurisdiction and mechanism as we are discussing here.
I know the nature of modern warfare, which is to involve and to target civilians; it is to breach the Geneva conventions almost every day. I know that the leaders of

people, armies and paramilitaries have become aware of this final sanction which might be used against them. I know that, in some cases, this has moderated their behaviour.
However, if the new court is to continue on the lines of the existing court at The Hague, I have grave doubts about it. That is from personal experience. I was the only journalist who agreed to testify to the court in the case of Blaskic. Most of the suspects who came before that court dealing with the former Yugoslavia were small fry, but Blaskic was not. He was the commander of the Bosnian Croat forces in the Lasva valley in central Bosnia in the bitter side war between Muslims and Croats, which started in April 1993 and continued to the ceasefire in February 1994.
Blaskic was arrested in the spring of 1996 and brought to The Hague. I believe that he has been subject to certain injustices which give me grave misgivings about the court that is now being proposed. He was held for more than a year before the trial began in June 1997. That trial went on until the end of July 1999—more than 25 months. As we stand here in this Chamber now, there still has been no decision from the judges. That means that, without a conviction, 10 per cent. of that young man's life has been spent in jail. That has to be unjust.
The procedures of the court are extremely dilatory. There were 158 witnesses and 3,000 pages of evidence, and the court sat for three days a week. The judges came in late on Monday and went early on Thursday. I calculated that Blaskic must have spent six days of his life in jail because of the judge's tea breaks. These courts are supposed to bear in mind the facts of the case, and not the comfort and convenience of the judges. If we are to set up a new system, it has to be run on different lines.
I am not sure that I am happy with the idea of a prosecutors court, which would be under political pressure to convict. If five cases come before that court in The Hague, and there are five acquittals, pressure will grow on the court. People will ask, "What is wrong? Why are you not convicting?" It may be because there has been insufficient evidence in those five cases. That is very important.
There is a risk when an individual—usually quite a prominent individual who represents a people—is arrested. He then develops a kind of iconic significance and is held responsible for the actions of some individuals in that group to which he belongs. The English language has a word for that—it is "scapegoat".
By all means, let us have a system of international justice in which there is no refuge for the guilty—however, let us above all have a system in which there is no injustice for the innocent.

Mr. Desmond Browne: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing this debate and on generating an opportunity to contribute to this important subject. I congratulate her also on so clearly and succinctly setting out the history and development of the International Criminal Court and on identifying the key issues in the debate.
I congratulate the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on his promotion, and I wish him well.
It is not possible to overestimate the significance of the adoption in Rome in July 1998 of the statutes of the permanent International Criminal Court. Consequent on that historic decision, for the first time a truly independent international court with an independent prosecutor and with the power to try crimes committed in internal conflicts will have jurisdiction to try those charged with war crimes, acts of genocide and crimes against humanity, and—when the issues of definition are resolved—acts of aggression.
At the ceremony celebrating the adoption in Rome in July of the statute of the International Criminal Court, Kofi Annan said:
By adopting this statute, participants in the conference have overcome many legal and political problems which kept this question on the United Nations agenda almost throughout the organisation's history. No doubt many of us would have liked the court vested with even more far-reaching powers, but that should not lead us to minimise the breakthrough you have achieved. It is an achievement which, only a few years ago, nobody would have thought possible.
The following day, in a statement to the House, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
It has been a paradox of our century that those who murder one person are more likely to be brought to justice than those who plot genocide against millions. The International Criminal Court will put on notice the Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of the future that they may be held to account personally for their crimes against humanity. It will also offer justice to the victims who have no means at present of bringing their suffering before any court."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 803.]
However, the political success of the adoption of the statute of the court is only a partial victory, as has already been pointed out. The permanent court will not be established until at least 60 states have ratified the Rome statute. So that as many states as possible will do so by the end of 2000, and so that the court may commence its activities no later than that date, it is necessary to mobilise an international movement towards ratification. The United Kingdom, which played a leading role in brokering a consensus at Rome, must now play a leading role in achieving the necessary number of ratifying states.
Delay is unthinkable. It would deprive the international community of a fundamental instrument in the defence of human rights by allowing the prosecution of those responsible for the most atrocious crimes, and it would have a number of other negative repercussions. While great progress has been made in the past 20 years to foster an effective system of international criminal justice, in particular through the creation of the two international criminal tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, it cannot be emphasised enough that that effort must be constantly consolidated.
Consolidation is imperative when one considers how many acts of genocide and violations of human rights go unpunished. In the past 50 years, there have been countless instances of crimes against humanity, including war crimes, for which no individual has been held accountable. Cambodia, Mozambique, El Salvador and Liberia have seen horrifying loss of civilian life, including many millions of unarmed women and children. In Algeria and the Great Lakes area of Africa, massacres of civilians continue and, over the past year, one need only contemplate the actions of war criminals in Kosovo and

East Timor to see that respect for international law desperately needs reinforcement. We cannot hope to generate that respect for international law unless we establish the principle of individual criminal accountability for all who commit such acts and unless we tackle impunity.
Without justice, many countries have no hope of lasting peace. To neglect or delay ratification of the International Criminal Court would send a negative message to the international community, at precisely the time that we should reinforce the progress made so far. Furthermore, the longer it takes the court to begin its work, the more chance its opponents have to mount a negative campaign against it. Therefore, we must build on the enthusiasm and momentum generated in Rome before it is dissipated. To do that, it is essential that countries in favour of the court, such as the United Kingdom, proceed with ratification immediately.
In the unlikely event that my hon. Friend the Minister has not had his mind concentrated on the important issues raised by this debate, I have several questions for him. Can he provide any information on the progress of ratification in the United Kingdom? Can he tell us in broad terms when the Bill for ratification will be voted on in this Parliament? I accept that the process of ratification is complicated, but can he give us some indication of what adaptation of the criminal law of the United Kingdom will be necessary to facilitate that ratification? In order to speed up the process, will he consider separating the ratification procedure from the adaptation of our legislation? Given that we have two distinct criminal law systems in these islands, can my hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he has had with the Minister for Justice of the Scottish Executive about the adaptation of Scots law in anticipation of ratification?

Dr. Julian Lewis: I shall be brief, so that other hon. Members have a chance to contribute. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), although I will probably damn her future political prospects by saying that I agree with almost every word that she said. I intend to refer briefly to two points—verification and enforcement. As I pointed out in the intervention that the hon. Lady kindly allowed me to make, the value of an International Criminal Court is that it allows not only the possibility of retribution and deterrence, but verification that the atrocities have indeed occurred.
The searing experience of the Nuremberg trials set on record more than 20 volumes of evidence of bestial depravity committed by the Nazi regime. I will never forget seeing a short film, "A Painful Reminder", which I commend to hon. Members, made by Sidney Bernstein and Alfred Hitchcock when the concentration camps were opened. They went to the camps and made a filmed record of what they saw. They even anticipated that, one day, people would deny that those horrors had taken place. Shortly before he died, Lord Bernstein gave an interview in which he explained that they had thought ahead and filmed with the widest angle camera shots they could, to make it as difficult as possible for the people who would one day wish to commit those crimes again to deny that their political allies had committed them in the past. That was before we had the obscenity of neo-Nazi historians such as David Irving in this country,


Ernst Zündel in Canada and Fred Leuchter in the United States of America trying to deny the holocaust. Verification is extremely important.
Enforcement is also important. It may cause some problems, but they should not prevent us from proceeding. The first problem is that of the criminal who is so strong that no one dares try him. It was argued at Nuremberg that the trials were "victors' justice". People still ask today how it was fair that the Soviets could sit in judgment when their regime was responsible for as many deaths and murders as the Nazi regime. We have recently had the visit of the Chinese President. One day, when those people are no longer in power, they may find themselves in the dock. My answer to that point is that being unable to bring everyone to justice does not mean that no one should be brought to justice.
The second problem is if the criminal is protected locally. Walter Rauff lived out his days in south America, even though he invented the vans which served as mobile gas chambers. People knew where he was and he was even interviewed for magazines, but he was never brought to justice. Mladic and Karadzic are still in Bosnia and nobody has yet sought to arrest them, presumably for political reasons rather than issues of justice. Aloïs Brunner, whom I have mentioned several times in the Chamber with a nil response from the Foreign Secretary on each occasion, was the man who assisted Eichmann in the holocaust in France—and he is still believed to be living in Syria under his pseudonym of Georg Fischer. Nothing is being done.
Finally, there is the problem that a criminal in government may be deterred from standing down if he does not feel he will get an amnesty if he ceases to be in government. My answer to that is simple: he should stay at home. General Pinochet might have found it useful to follow that advice. If this court is going to be made to work—as it can and must be made to work—it must be even-handed in the application of its practice, and dictators of left and right with blood on their hands must be brought to account impartially.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I shall begin by adding my congratulations to the Minister on his new appointment. I am especially delighted as he is a former constituent of mine, and I like to see my boys doing well.
My main interest in terms of human rights has always been to examine the factors that lead to the abuse of those rights, and to crimes against humanity. My aim is to find ways to prevent abuse occurring in the first place. The task is awesome and involves many factors, such as relief of poverty, conflict prevention and fair trade conditions.
In the past two and a half years, I and other members of the Select Committee on International Development have travelled extensively. There is not time for all the stories that I could tell: suffice it to say that the blood-curdling and heart-rending stories from Rwanda, southern Sudan and Kosovo were enough to make me realise that, as well as trying to find ways to prevent such crimes against humanity, we must ensure justice for the victims and make certain that the aggressors are brought to justice.
That is why we Liberal Democrats were delighted that, after much pushing and prodding—and despite rumours that the United States was trying to stop us—the United Kingdom eventually signed up to the ICC in Rome last

year. The treaty is probably imperfect, as the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said, but it contains safeguards against malicious prosecution. There is provision for a pre-trial chamber that is independent of the prosecutor, and other safeguards will govern the length of time for which a person can be held. The sooner we ratify the treaty and begin the discussions on how it will work, the sooner we will be able to iron out the problems.
I am reminded very much of the problems that we had with the ratification of the land mine treaty. Many rumours circulated at that time to the effect that the US was trying to prevent us signing. In the end, I suspect that the United Kingdom signed up to that treaty because the French bounced us into it. Perish the thought that that should happen this time.
Must we experience the same delay with the ICC? Many agencies accuse the Government of being influenced by the United States. Other countries are not ratifying the treaty because we have not ratified it. That is a chicken-and-egg problem that we must get to grips with—once Britain ratifies the treaty, other countries will follow.
As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, we must be among the first 60 states to ratify the treaty so that we will belong to the assembly of state parties that will draw up the rules of procedure and evidence about which the hon. Member for Tatton is so worried. As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said, we must ratify the treaty to set an example to next month's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Will the Minister tell the House what line the Government intend to take with the United States? That country's refusal to sign the treaties on nuclear test bans and land mines shows that it will not sign any international treaty at present. The cold war is over, but the United States does not know how to behave in the new world. Its excuse in this case is that there would be malicious prosecution of its military personnel, but safeguards against that are built into the treaty. For example, the UN Security Council has the power to halt any prosecution indefinitely. Moreover, if the US prosecuted one of its own nationals, the ICC would have no jurisdiction anyway, so what is the problem?
We have received many assurances from the Foreign Secretary that we will ratify this treaty, but the time for such assurances is over. We must ratify the treaty, and I hope that the Minister will tell the House that proposals to that effect will be included in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I shall be very brief, as I have only one substantive point to make. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred to the dangers of selective justice, and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) mentioned the dangers of creating scapegoats. I believe that another danger exists, to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) alluded. That is that, in any conflict, there is always the risk that those on the winning side will determine the rules of the continuation of the conflict by other means.
I am worried by what the proceedings in the tribunal in The Hague have revealed. Reference was made to an apparent injustice suffered by a Croat who allegedly carried out war crime against Muslims. However,


although leading members of the Bosnian Serb side have been indicted, either in public or in secret, the commander-in-chief of the Croatian forces responsible for atrocities against Serbs and Muslims is lauded around the world.
That commander is Mr. Franjo Tudjman, who visited this country for the VE day celebrations, and other purposes. As far as I know, no country in western Europe has tried to bring a war crimes action against him, even though he is implicated in the atrocities carried out in Bosnia in that period almost as much—or as much—as many of the other senior figures. I am a strong advocate of the International Criminal Court, and I want the Government to ratify the treaty as soon as possible, but we must look with honesty at the way in which the process has been handled over recent years.
It is good that Croatia's courts have now prosecuted Dinko Sadjik, the former commandant of the Jasenovac concentration camp. That came about as a result of international pressure. In order to get into the Council of Europe, among other things, Croatia had to be seen to do something about a man who went back to Croatia and said that it represented the flowering of the Ustasa state that he had supported and worked for in the 1940s.
I believe that we must start asking questions about the atrocities committed by the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims, as well as by the Bosnian Serbs. We must ask those questions in an even-handed way, or the ICC will be seen—as The Hague tribunal is already seen by some people—to be the plaything of one side in the conflict.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: At the instigation of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), we have had an extremely interesting debate on the International Criminal Court, and I am sure that the House, and a wider audience outside, will be grateful to her. Last year, the Foreign Secretary announced with great fanfare that the ICC was going to come into effect soon, but nothing has happened since.
I should also like to welcome the Minister on his first outing in his new post. I wish him great happiness and hope that he will stay a little longer than his predecessors. He is fortunate in that there is clearly a consensus in the Chamber today. There have been interesting and helpful contributions from hon. Members of all parties. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) shared his experiences with us today, and I am grateful for the views expressed by the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Putney (Mr. Colman), as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) also made a very sound contribution, but I am not sure that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will be welcomed with open arms in America after her remarks.
I shall be brief, as I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this subject. My views about the International Criminal Court can easily be summarised. Only four countries have ratified the court so far, and it has been noted that major countries such as India, Israel, China and the United States have not signed up to it. I believe that compromises in the negotiations have left

the treaty with fundamental flaws, and the United Kingdom has made no progress towards ratification. In addition, the efficacy and cost of the final outcome remain to be explored in detail.
The Foreign Secretary promised us ratification, and the will of the House is to seek ratification. The Foreign Secretary said that that would be difficult and complex, and that he did not want to rush it through in a single day as was done with the land mines legislation. We are willing to give the process time, but the Minister must realise that the Government are in charge of business—only they can make the time for this important move. The House expects the Minister to give us good news today; indeed, if he fails to do so, he will show that our greatest fears have been realised and that the Government are merely pandering to soundbite politics by making something look good, but failing to come through on it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough reminded us that the process has been going on for decades. An international tribunal with universal jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity has been at the top of the agenda since resolution 260 was passed in 1948. Yet there is still no permanent International Criminal Court. The ad hoc tribunals set up to deal with Rwanda and Yugoslavia were set up at the express instruction of the United Nations Security Council and were never intended to be permanent. Indeed, the efficacy of those institutions has been called into question many times.
The establishment of an international court probably remains many years away. The Foreign Secretary's initial enthusiasm was misleading because it is hard to envisage the success of an institution that seven nations opposed and on which 21 nations abstained. The countries that I have mentioned are a massive concentration of people and world power. What have the Government done since Rome to persuade those countries towards the perspective of the countries that ratified the treaty? If the Minister cannot answer now, I hope that he will write to me.
Closer examination of the treaty reveals some serious difficulties. Speakers have alluded to its necessary adoption by 60 states if it is to come into force. I have been told that, on the preparatory commission—PrepCom—that target has moved. Is that so, and what does the Minister propose to do about it? There are plenty of anomalies in the treaty: acts of terrorism will fall outside the court's jurisdiction, as will the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The use of poisoned weapons will constitute a war crime, so that the court would have jurisdiction if someone killed a single civilian with a poisoned arrow or dumdum bullet, but would not be able to act if the person concerned had killed hundreds of thousands of people with a biological or nuclear weapon. It would be helpful if the Minister would comment on those anomalies.
Costs and efficacy are important matters. The hon. Member for Tatton used his personal experience of the Yugoslavian tribunal to refer to a detainee who is awaiting sentence. However, the facts and figures relating to that tribunal are frightening. What is the Minister doing about the problems highlighted by that tribunal, and what lessons have been learned from it that may be carried over to the International Criminal Court?
The tribunal was established in May 1993. It has 778 members of staff from 63 countries. To date, it has cost more than $279 million. Yet the net result is that just


one person—currently serving a sentence in Norway—has been convicted. Some 91 people have been publicly indicted: six have died; 18 have had the charges dropped; 33 remain at large; 31 are in custody; and two have been released pending appeals. We must query the spending of $279 million on putting one person in custody. What lessons is the Minister learning from the tribunals? What contribution is the UK making towards ensuring that PrepCom meetings and planning meetings on the court will rid us of the worst excesses of tribunals of this type? We must ensure that we achieve an effective vehicle for international justice.
I have mentioned our broad support for the court, a support the Conservative party has offered for decades. We have always supported the principle, and shall continue to do so by helping the Minister in any way that we can. I therefore hope that he will tell us that the Queen's Speech will contain a relevant measure.
Foreign policy today is not conducted as the Conservative party would like. It seems to be based on saying one thing and doing another. It is to be commended that Amnesty International is working within the Foreign Office, but less so that it is left to the President of China rather than our Prime Minister to raise human rights during the President's recent visit. The Foreign Secretary will not even sign a condemnation of China's human rights records, as the Conservatives did successively. I hold out little hope for Labour's ethical and moral foreign policy, which seems to have two faces.
I also have little hope that the Minister will tell me that the ratification of the International Criminal Court will be contained in the Queen's Speech. If he cannot tell us that—I can see from the expression on his face that he cannot—he has already failed. Perhaps instead I could ask for this commitment to the House and to those who wish to see the court's creation: will the Foreign Office give us regular progress reports and details of discussions that Ministers are holding with their opposite numbers in China, the USA, Israel, India and other countries that have not supported the treaty? I want to see letters and correspondence that prove that the Government are putting their money where their mouth is by pursuing a moral and ethical foreign policy.
At present, the Foreign Office tries to sound good and look good, but does nothing. No progress has been made since the Foreign Secretary announced to the House with a great fanfare the signing of the treaty in Rome. The House demands action.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for raising this important matter. Until the final remarks of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), an excellent consensus had been found, and I have rarely attended a foreign policy debate in which there have been so many expressions of support for the principle of what the Government propose. I am grateful for that support to the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). I thank, too, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough

(Mr. Garnier) for his kind comments, but must add that, although I am the Minister for Europe, Leicester remains in Europe—

Mr. Garnier: But not run by Europe.

Mr. Vaz: Nor, fortunately, is it run by the Conservative party. I shall continue to make my constituency duties a priority.
I was delighted that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) called me one of her boys, and shall refer to her from now on as "Mummy".
The Government are absolutely committed to the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Recent events in Kosovo and East Timor have only served to strengthen our resolve. The court will be able to tackle the culture of impunity, and to put an end to the dreadful paradox of the 20th century that those guilty of killing one man, woman or child are more likely to be brought to justice than those guilty of killing thousands. It will put dictators and potential dictators on notice that crimes against humanity will not be tolerated. We are determined that the International Criminal Court should be an effective means of securing justice for victims of heinous crimes. We hope that the knowledge that those who have committed atrocities will be brought to justice will help their victims and their victims' families to put the past behind them and participate in a process of reconciliation and reconstruction.
As many hon. Members have noted in the debate, the Rome statute was a huge achievement. The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called it a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law. I am glad to report that the United Kingdom has played an impressive part in that achievement. We were, and remain, part of the like-minded group of states that formed in Rome to throw their collective weight behind the court.
We are proud of our achievements during the Rome negotiations. The United Kingdom took the lead in introducing important elements such as ensuring that the court covered internal conflicts, the question of child soldiers, reparations for victims, the appropriate qualifications for judges and the important question of court procedures. That work continues at the preparatory commission meetings at which our delegates continue to contribute in preparing rules of procedure and evidence of crimes, and the work is proceeding well. The next meeting of the preparatory commission will be held in New York on 29 November.
As many hon. Members have said, 89 countries have signed the Rome statute and four have ratified it. That level of support proves how seriously the international community views these crimes and demonstrates global revulsion at genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the work is not over yet. We want many more countries to sign the statute and we have encouraged all Commonwealth members to sign and ratify it. We raise the issue of the court in bilateral contacts with countries around the world as well as in multilateral forums and we have supported activities to promote awareness of the court and ratification.

Mrs. Gillan: Did the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary raise the matter of the ICC directly with President Jiang during the Chinese president's visit last week?

Mr. Vaz: We raised many issues with the president of China. It is important that all such questions are raised whenever we meet Prime Ministers and other heads of state.
We have provided funding to the NGO coalition for an International Criminal Court and helped to fund the South African development community conference on ratification. We have offered support to countries that require technical assistance with ratification, and I repeat that offer today. We share the widespread hope that the United States will sign the Rome statute of the court. The Americans are concerned that their service men operating overseas could be subject to unjustified, politically motivated accusations, but we and our other NATO allies disagree.
We believe that the Rome statute contains sufficient safeguards to protect service men, the most important of which is the complementarity principle that allows domestic jurisdictions the right to try their own people. If serious allegations were made in good faith against British citizens, we are confident that we could demonstrate that there was a remedy in British justice. The same argument would apply to the United States of America.
We regularly make the case for the International Criminal Court with the Americans: it is no secret that we want them on board. The court will be much stronger if the United States is a party to it. The Foreign Secretary has urged Mrs. Albright, the American Secretary of State, to support the court—most recently when they met at the United Nations in September. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that there is no question of our being rude to the United States—that is not the Foreign Secretary's style. My right hon. Friend has taken every opportunity to ensure that the matter is raised constructively.
The Americans have said that they would like to move towards signing the statute, and we hope that a way can be found to address their concerns. I assure the House that we are very clear on one point: any solution to the United States question or any other problem must not undermine the integrity of the statute that was agreed in Rome or reduce the effectiveness of the court. The Government believe in a strong International Criminal Court as negotiated in Rome.
It is too early to predict when the court will come into being. It will happen when 60 states ratify the statute. I must inform the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that it is not possible to alter that figure because it is set in statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence Committee cannot change it. It is obviously too early to predict when every state will ratify the statute so that we achieve the necessary 60 signatures. Some states can ratify before passing implementing legislation—which is what the four signatories to the treaty have done—but many others, like the United Kingdom, will have to make legislative provisions first and some countries will need to change their constitutions.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun who raised this point, let me say that it is important that we keep in touch with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive about this issue. Several matters of concern to the ICC are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which will be clearly consulted before the Bill comes to Westminster. We will have to alter our criminal law before we can introduce implementing legislation, so we will need to make changes before the Bill comes before the House.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried gently to persuade me to reveal the contents of the Queen's Speech, but I do not propose to do so on the Floor of the House because I do not know what is in it and I cannot comment on such matters. Hon. Members are quite passionate about this issue—as are the Government—and they want to know whether legislation will come before the next Session of Parliament. It remains our firm intention to be one of the first 60 states to ratify the statute because that is an important demonstration of our support for the court. I cannot say what will be in the legislative programme but we hope that, if we make our intentions clear, others will take our lead and begin the process of ratification.
It is important for the United Kingdom to ratify early so that we can be a founder member of the court. We want to be part of the decision-making process at the first assembly of states. However, I cannot look into the future and predict accurately how soon the statute will come into force. Officials in my Department are already working hard preparing for a Bill. It will be detailed and complex legislation involving several Government Departments and will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
The Bill will set out the practical operation of our relationship with the ICC. It will enable our law enforcement authorities to fulfil our obligation to co-operate with the court in matters such as the arrest and transfer of suspects, handing over information and conducting searches and seizures. The legislation will also give effect to the fines and forfeitures ordered by the ICC and incorporate into British law crimes that are within the court's jurisdiction. That will allow British courts to prosecute those crimes when they occur in our jurisdiction, something that we believe is very important. The primary right and responsibility to prosecute such crimes will continue to fall to the states, and the International Criminal Court will act only when states are unable or unwilling to do so. The Security Council will also be able to refer cases to the court in accordance with its responsibilities for international peace and security.
I hope that the very existence of the court will reduce the number of future crimes of this kind. However, we must be realistic: the International Criminal Court will be needed and it will require our support, politically and financially. I was pleased to witness cross-party support for the ICC this morning, and I trust that it will be borne in mind when the Bill passes smoothly through the House.

Climate Change

11 am

Mr. Tom Brake: Climate change has been discussed many times in the House and we are well versed in the arguments, but I make no apology for returning to the subject and what the UK Government's response to it should be.
The global impact of climate change has never been so apparent. The Red Cross said that last year's natural disasters were the most damaging on record and predicted that catastrophes would become more widespread and devastating as climate change takes hold. Unveiling the organisation's 1999 report, the president of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said:
Climate change is no longer a doomsday prophecy, it is a reality … Changing climate means changing disaster patterns.
According to the report, more natural disasters occurred in 1998 than in any other year on record. The report noted that climate change has made the consequences of disasters more complex.
In 1998, global mean surface temperature was the highest since records began. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that to avert the worst impacts of climate change, cuts of 60 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions must be achieved by 2050. In the UK, climate change could lead to an increase in the frequency of extreme weather conditions. Average wind speeds could rise, resulting in 30 per cent. more gales in Wales and southern England during the winter, thus increasing the risk of hurricanes.
Global climate change is a reality; its global impact is undeniable. What are we doing about it? We all know that the UK has a legal obligation to reduce by 12.5 per cent. its output of six greenhouse gases between 2008 and 2012—the Kyoto target. However, before the adoption of the Kyoto protocol, the Labour party, in opposition, pledged to reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. from their 1990 levels by 2010. That was a welcome commitment, but it seems as though the Government have lost their momentum on climate change. Perhaps discussion of the climate change levy disguises the real issues and problems that the Government need to address.
The fifth conference of the parties to the climate change convention began this week. The UK must play an important role there, in keeping alive the Kyoto protocol with its binding obligations to reduce greenhouse gases. The Government must act globally. However, action to prevent irreversible change to our climate must also be taken at home, so the Government must act locally.

Mr. Barry Jones: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. However, I draw his attention to a problem in my industrial constituency. I led a deputation to the Treasury complaining of the severity of its proposed measures. My constituency is based on steel, and steel workers are concerned that the levy will lead to job losses. Since our deputation to the Treasury, British Steel has merged with a Dutch company and the loss of jobs is one of our

worries. In that context, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the local consequences if Her Majesty's Government impose too great a tax?

Mr. Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I understand his concern. I welcome the fact that the Government are holding consultations on the climate change levy. However, I hope that, at the end of that process, they will not tear the guts out of the climate change levy so that its environmental impact is reduced to nothing. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point later.
We need to take action locally to prevent climate change. What the Government achieve at home is a key litmus test. A failure to act nationally will affect the UK's international reputation on environmental matters. The Government must maintain the lead in those matters, and the 20 per cent. target must be achieved.
I am not the only Member who is concerned that the Government might fail to achieve their 20 per cent. target commitment. It is interesting to note how the Government's language on this matter has changed since 1997. In 1997, Labour's election manifesto gave a clear commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. That was stated throughout 1997, and repeated to the House by the Prime Minister. By 1998, the 12.5 per cent. Kyoto figure was described as a target; the 20 per cent. target became a domestic aim.
In their consultation paper on climate change, the Government stated that they intended to move beyond the legally binding target towards a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. However, they did not state which policies they would implement to achieve that target. Regrettably, the Chancellor failed to mention the 20 per cent. target in his Budget speech, although he did mention the Kyoto target. More recently, the 20 per cent. target was described as a "domestic goal" in the Government's annual report, but it was not listed as one of their 177 commitments.
Unfortunately, in 1999, the situation has worsened. It seems that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister continue to forget the 20 per cent. reduction pledge in their manifesto; they refer only to the Kyoto target. The 20 per cent. target has now been relegated to something that the Government will "move towards". When the Minister responds, I hope that he will reassure us that the Government still intend to hit that 20 per cent. target and that it is not merely something that they will be moving towards.

Mr. David Chaytor: I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Will he pay tribute to the Government for the work that is already being done towards the objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions? I am thinking especially of the introduction of the fuel duty escalator. Does his party support the fuel duty escalator in all parts of the United Kingdom? My experience is that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of the escalator in certain parts of the country, because they—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. When the Deputy Speaker stands, the hon. Gentleman should sit down. He must remain seated because his intervention is far too long.

Mr. Brake: I shall respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Liberal Democrats support the


fuel duty escalator, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government and maintained by the Labour Government. However, the hon. Gentleman will surely agree with me about the importance of a clear link between the revenue that is raised from the escalator and the environment. If there is no clear link and the money is seen merely to be going into the Treasury coffers, problems will arise.
Will the Government attempt to achieve the 20 per cent. target? I hope that they will. The Minister for the Environment said that there will be benefits if we achieve the 20 per cent. target, so what measures are the Government implementing to that end? If they drop one of their key manifesto pledges, their environmental rhetoric will be seen as nothing more than greenwash.
Concern about the Government's changing position was highlighted recently in a letter to the Prime Minister from four organisations—Friends of the Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature, Greenpeace and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—which urged the Government to stick to Labour's manifesto pledge. They feared that the 20 per cent. target is becoming merely "an aspirational aim" and that the Government will not deliver on it. I share their fear.
However, to have a target is not enough; we need a strategy to achieve it. We are now more than halfway through this Parliament, and we have seen no climate change strategy with the necessary framework for action. The Government took 17 months to produce the consultation paper on climate change. Now, a year later, in October 1999, we are arguing the case for the protection of the global climate in Bonn. That is good, but we have failed to take substantive action at home, whereas countries such as Germany, Austria and Denmark have not only produced strategies to fight climate change but have implemented those strategies and review them regularly. The Minister for the Environment told the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs that he hoped to publish a draft strategy towards the end of this year, but, given the importance of the matter, the Under-Secretary of State should tell us today the deadline for the production of the strategy.
The strategy must list the measures needed to achieve the 12.5 per cent. Kyoto target—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): indicated assent.

Mr. Brake: I see the Minister nod; I hope he also agrees that the strategy should list the measures needed to achieve the 20 per cent. carbon dioxide reduction target and set out the long-term policies that will set Britain on the path to climate-friendly energy production and use.
We need a huge increase in energy efficiency, a reduction in overall traffic volumes and a substantial shift from fossil fuels to renewables and combined heat and power. Energy efficiency will play a crucial part in our response to climate change. It will reduce fossil fuel use, help to end what the Environmental Audit Committee described as the "continuing national scandal" of fuel poverty and create jobs in employment black spots.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case for putting greater resources into

the renovation of the nation's housing stock, to install double glazing and take other measures to improve fuel efficiency, reduce poverty, contribute to energy saving and prevent needless waste of energy?

Mr. Brake: I do agree, as would hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is noticeable that the Government have failed to address the discrepancy between VAT charged on new homes and VAT charged on renovation works. It is high time that they dealt with that issue.
Many excellent ideas on energy efficiency have been proposed to the House, including cutting VAT on energy-saving materials, involving health authorities and local authorities in the fight against fuel poverty and requiring mortgage surveys to include an energy efficiency survey, but the Government's response has been disappointing. The Government have cut VAT but only on materials bought under Government schemes, rather than on private householder purchases of insulation materials. They promised to seek a further reduction in negotiations with our European Union partners, but when the EU gave us the chance to make a reduction such as has been made in France and Italy, the Government decided against it.
The Government opposed the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), although I am pleased to hear that they have now relented and intend to include my hon. Friend's ideas in their guidance to health authorities. Similarly, the Fuel Poverty and Energy Conservation Bill was opposed, but the Government relented under pressure and will now alter Government advice on that subject. The Government could have done more to ensure that Bills they supported—the Energy Efficiency Bill and the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill—were enacted. I understand that a requirement for an energy efficiency survey was not referred to in the latest press release on the new system for buying and selling homes; that is an ominous omission.
I am aware of the role played by a small number of Conservative Members in blocking several of those private Members' Bills, but the Government cannot escape all blame. They failed to support amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 which might have implemented some of the proposed energy policies and they failed to accept the Liberal Democrats' offer of a Supply day to consider such matters. The Government must do more than passively support such measures; they must use Government time to force them through. I hope that the Queen's Speech will announce that similar measures are to be included in proposed Government Bills on housing or local government.
Transport policy should form a key part of the Government's strategy to reduce carbon dioxide levels by 20 per cent. by 2010. It is unlikely that that target will be met without reducing the number of car journeys. Both before and after the election, Labour promised to act on that question, but now the Government's commitment appears to be to reduce traffic growth, even though a continuing increase in traffic is likely to lead to higher emissions.
A reduction in the use of fossil fuels and an increase in the energy derived from renewable sources and combined heat and power is also required if the Government are to


hit their target. The Government recognise that and are consulting on a climate change levy. Although a carbon tax would have been preferable on environmental grounds and should still be pursued at EU level, a climate change levy will help to reduce fossil fuel use. However, as I said earlier, the Government's consultation process must not be allowed to lead to the emasculation of the levy.

Mr. John Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those companies that are energy efficient should not be penalised simply because they are high energy users? Dow Corning Ltd. in my constituency has created a heat and power plant and strives to derive maximum energy use from that unit. The company is rightly concerned that the levy will be based on energy use rather than energy efficiency.

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and understand his point. The Government should consider a measure that has been adopted in other countries, whereby if a company can demonstrate that it uses the best possible technology to reduce energy use, the climate change levy might not be applicable to that company. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
The Government recognise the importance of renewables and CHP and have ambitious targets for their use: 10 per cent. of UK electricity to be generated using renewable sources and 12 per cent. using CHP to be achieved over the next 10 years. However, Government policies are hurting those sectors. As we know, CHP is not exempt from the climate change levy, nor is electricity generated from renewable sources. Bryan Bateman, the Paper Federation of Great Britain's director of business and environment, says of CHP and the climate change levy:
The UK paper industry is very energy intensive. CHP is crucial to the process in maintaining cost effectiveness as well the achievement of our climate change targets. It should, in our view, be exempted from the climate change levy.
The Government are not following the lead provided by other Governments in investing in sunrise energies, providing tax breaks and incentives, developing those technologies and creating export opportunities in a growing overseas market. They are missing opportunities to help developing countries. Dr. Leggett, an expert on solar energy who headed up an industry solar task force supported by the Government and including BP, Eastern Electricity and NatWest, is disappointed with Government progress on solar energy. He said today:
It is bewildering how the DTI can stand by watching the Germans and the Japanese race ahead with the development of a market which many now believe will equal, if not exceed, the micro-technology market.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The long-term answer to global warming is solar energy, as that is the only infinitely renewable resource. Is it not extremely disappointing that our efforts, both internationally and domestically, over the decades to harness solar energy have been so incredibly feeble?

Mr. Brake: I agree with that helpful intervention, although I would add that wind power is also infinitely renewable. It is true that if we had solar photovoltaic roofs

on every house in this country, we would do away with the need for power stations—indeed, an energy surplus would be generated.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: All renewables except the tides are solar. That is not a correction but a helpful comment. The source of wind is solar. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great problems in the expansion of renewables is the planning framework, which is leading time and again to objections and obstacles to their development. The Government will have to address this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that there is an increasing incidence of wind farms coming up against planning objections. We need to sell much harder the environmental benefits of such projects, and compare them with, for example, the proliferation of electricity pylons across the country. More can be done and we need a Government commitment to renewable wind power, whether or not wind power is solar.
Dr. Leggett and other experts in renewables are extremely concerned about the distinct lack of joined-up government between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry. The DETR is actively promoting renewables and solar power, and the DTI is actively pouring cold water on them.
To assist the Minister in responding to the debate, I shall summarise my concerns in a series of brief questions of which he has had notice. I hope that he will give the House an informed and detailed response.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend keeping to their 20 per cent. CO2 target? When will the Government be producing the climate change strategy document? Will it contain the measures necessary to hit not only the 12.5 per cent. Kyoto target but the 20 per cent. target? Does the Minister agree with me that the imposition of the climate change levy on electricity from renewables and CHP is completely nonsensical, and what will he do to address that problem?
Will the Minister make it absolutely clear to the Treasury that the climate change levy, in the absence of something like a carbon tax, is key to meeting the Government's CO2 reduction target? Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed, as part of their strategy, to reducing the overall level of traffic? Will he try to convince the Government and their partners within the EU to ratify the Kyoto protocol early, regardless of what the Americans decide to do? Will the Minister proactively provide technical advice and assistance to developing countries to help them reduce their CO2 emissions? Will he be working with his EU partners to consider the possibility of implementing a Europewide carbon tax?
Finally, will the Minister and the Secretary of State be resigning if they fail to hit their 20 per cent. reduction target? I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has offered to resign if his targets are not hit. I would expect nothing less from the Minister and his Secretary of State.

Mr. Damian Green: Not only the Secretary of State for Education and Employment but his entire ministerial team have promised to resign if they do not hit their targets. I feel that this is a good example.

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am pleased that the whole team will have to resign so that there will be lots of vacancies on the Government Front Bench in a couple of years' time.
The Minister's response will confirm whether the Government are serious about tackling the global impact of climate change or whether they are content to rest on their rhetorical laurels while the earth burns.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on initiating this debate. The topic is infinitely important. On the issue of whether the entire ministerial team should resign if the 20 per cent. target is not achieved, I would point out that the targets are set for 2010. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is confident about the return and re-return of this extremely environmentally sensitive and aware Labour Government.
I am a scientist by background and I was formerly a lecturer in environmental science. I have spent the past 20 years reviewing environmental problems. I am delighted that progress has been made in many areas, such as acid rain. I am delighted that nuclear power is being phased out. I am delighted also that on genetically modified foods the Government are steering slightly away from their earlier position. However, the problems of global warming are of a dimension that goes beyond those in other areas. It is the most intractable of all environmental problems. In developing countries and in our own pre-history, the use of timber has produced and continues to produce carbon dioxide. The use of timber leads to deforestation. Britain is the least-forested country in the world—only 5 per cent. of our land is covered by woodland.
The march of civilisation makes us increasingly energy intensive. All our energy has come from timber, coal, oil and gas, which all produce carbon dioxide. There is no sink for that carbon dioxide, and it just increases and increases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased measurably in the past century. From memory, it has increased from about 280 parts to 340 parts per million. If carbon dioxide was inert in the atmosphere, like nitrogen, perhaps there would be no problem. Unfortunately, it absorbs the infra-red or the radiation out into space from the earth. Increasing carbon dioxide levels therefore mean increased temperatures for the earth. That was a scientific theory in the 1960s and the 1970s, but it has become demonstrably the case in the past 10 or 20 years.
One of the great advances stemming from the Kyoto summit in particular, and from the work that led up to it over the previous 10 or 15 years, is that there is now widespread recognition in all the advanced and developing countries that we have a major environmental problem with carbon dioxide that must be tackled. The only ignorant places are parts of the United States and the OPEC countries. Unfortunately, the solution is politically extremely difficult. It requires political will of a dimension that goes beyond any democracy because of

the importance of the motor car, our central heating systems and our standard of living. Everything that we aspire to and ask people to vote us into Parliament for depends on carbon dioxide emissions. In tackling the problem, we are attacking the very foundation or style of our society.
The danger has been and still is that politicians say, "The problem is too difficult to solve. It will not give us any returns over a five-year Parliament or even over 10 or 20 years. The less we do about it, the better it is for us politically." However, the problem is with us, and the evidence accumulates. It is very difficult to say that this year the world climate has been warmer, but there is an accumulation of evidence. Almost every week we hear of horrible floods, a hurricane or forest fires. I read in The Mirror last week about an iceberg that measures 40 miles across that is drifting towards Argentina. I dare say that icebergs have always drifted from the polar caps, but not icebergs of such a size and not with such frequency. Problems involving the north and south poles illustrate how challenging the overall problem is.
There has been no energy production at the poles—problems have been exported to the poles by the rest of the world. The great problem is that the ice cover is diminishing because huge chunks are being knocked off the ice caps and are melting, and the earth's temperature then rises for two reasons. The first is the amount of carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere, and the second is that if polar caps melt at a significant rate, the amount of sunlight that they reflect diminishes.
I remember reading in the 1970s about the runaway effect whereby a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming, which then begins to boil carbon dioxide out of the world's oceans. The amount of CO2 in the oceans is 60 times that in the atmosphere, and as temperatures rise, that carbon dioxide drifts into the atmosphere. The runaway effect will eventually cause our planet to have an atmosphere somewhat like that of Venus, which is shrouded in cloud.
Any damage to the polar caps is even more serious than the weather that afflicts Britain or the United States. The article in The Mirror says:
Temperatures in the Antarctic have been steadily rising and are now 2.5C higher than at the end of World War II.
I do not vouch for the accuracy of our tabloids, although The Mirror is one of the best, but a rise of 2.5 deg C at the polar caps in the past 50 years is deeply serious.
As I said earlier, the Kyoto summit is an important part of tackling the problem because it gives it worldwide recognition. Our Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the summits leading up to Kyoto, and by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment at Kyoto, worked towards achieving the first agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions and cut them by 5.5 per cent. by 2010. That does not solve the problem, but it is an acceptance that there is a big problem, and if we can achieve that target, it will be the first, small step towards a solution. I am proud of the cuts that Britain has achieved. The dash for gas is largely responsible for those—the energy policy that has produced the cuts is not very clever, but we lead the world in limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out that those are just the first steps and that we need cuts of 60 per cent. by the middle of the next


century. If we want sustainable development—the key term used by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis)—we need carbon dioxide emissions to be in balance with the world's capacity to absorb them. That would require a tenfold cut in present emissions which, politically, we cannot imagine unless we move away from fossil fuels. During the next 50 to 100 years, we must almost completely stop using them, which is why solar energy is so important.
I return now to the present target of a 20 per cent. cut in emissions. The Government have a series of policies, several of which have already been implemented, that will help to tackle the problem. I shall review each of them briefly, but critically. We have made good progress on energy efficiency. An extra £150 million has been allocated to the home energy efficiency scheme, and young, unemployed people are being recruited to the environmental task force to work on the homes of the elderly and the poorest people. The scheme cares for the elderly and provides employment and it is good socialism—[Interruption.] Yes, I used the word "socialism". If hon. Members prefer, I will say that it is good social justice. I do not think that they would disagree with that, even if they puff at the term "socialism". I am delighted that we are allocating substantially higher sums to the scheme.
Our combined heat and power targets for 2010 are sensible and, I hope, achievable. We aim for CHP to provide 12 per cent. of our electricity by 2010.

Mr. Brake: How helpful in achieving the 12 per cent. target does the hon. Gentleman think that applying the climate change levy to CHP will be?

Mr. Williams: It will be not at all helpful, but I point out in passing that in Wales the Baglan bay energy park scheme for energy generation will, when it is completed in three to five years, be an outstanding example of the efficient use of CHP energy by industry in this country.
On renewable energy, I said earlier that I am very disappointed by Britain's record over the past 30 years. In the 1970s, we realised that oil prices were a problem and that we needed to develop more sophisticated energy sources, and renewable energy suddenly acquired importance. However, over the past 20 years, we have always had a target of achieving 10 per cent. of power from renewable sources by the end of each decade, so the present target is 10 per cent. by 2010.
The record of achievement on renewable energy in the European Union reveals that we are 15th out of 15—a sorry bottom of the league. Yet our potential to harness wind, wave and tidal energy is greater than that of any European country. It makes no sense that Germany produces three times as much wind electricity as Britain. We have high environmental standards and planning regulations, but we are timid in our work on renewable energy.
Solar energy has to be the long-term answer. Britain is not sunny, compared to California, Italy or Spain, but in 100 years we will have to be producing most of our power from solar energy. The countries that are doing the basic scientific groundwork and adapting technologies to harness those energy sources are those that will have the industries to export that energy in 20 or 30 years. Our efforts to harness solar energy should be dramatically greater than they are.
The fuel duty escalator obviously is a politically difficult policy. Sadly, we need cross-party co-operation on difficult policies for environmentally achievable goals. We are not getting as much support as is needed—certainly not from the Conservative party, which introduced the fuel duty escalator and has now made a complete U-turn and is hostile to that policy.
I turn now to the climate change levy. I support a carbon tax or energy tax, and I always have done. The price of coal, gas and oil has dropped over the past 15 years. The price of oil is now $22 a barrel and has peaked at between $35 and $40. Coal prices have collapsed and gas is getting cheaper, so I cannot understand industry squealing about the introduction of an energy tax.
I attended the debate on the climate change levy last July. The levy should raise £1.7 billion, which will be reimbursed in national insurance contributions, so it is revenue neutral and will create employment. However, it will save only 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year, which, frankly, is trivial. That works out at £1,000 per tonne of carbon saved, when coal is about £50 a tonne. The punishment does not fit the crime; it is at least 10 times the cost of the energy. Therefore, the levy is very inefficient. Although I support it—the broad-brush approach of any punitive tax will act as a disincentive to use energy and so will surely have some effect—if all that it will save is 1.5 million tonnes, perhaps we should consider it a little further.
Finally, on tree planting, there was some discussion at Kyoto about emissions trading between countries, which has to be a large part of the long-term answer. Australia suggested plantations. It has large areas of land on which it wants to plant trees, which would help to absorb carbon dioxide. If it did, should it not get privileged treatment because it can set off its carbon dioxide emissions against those plantations?
The same goes for Britain. Let us consider the problems in our agricultural industry which, given the price of lamb, beef, milk and so forth, faces a real crisis. We must ask ourselves whether we are making the best use of our land. We want to use it for tourism and for environmental purposes as well as for food production. Originally, the land was covered in trees, which absorbed carbon dioxide. As the going rate—the climate change levy rate—is £1,000 per tonne, if we paid every farmer that sum for all the carbon that his trees can absorb, we would have millionaire farmers throughout Britain.
Tree planting must form a part of our carbon dioxide strategy. The highlands of Scotland and the mountains of north Wales used to be covered by trees. I read yesterday that Sussex was 95 per cent. woodland in Tudor times. We must consider tree planting as part of our rural and agricultural diversification policy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I propose to take the winding-up speeches at 12.10 pm. Four Back Benchers still want to speak, so hon. Members can do their own calculations. I call the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis).

Mr. Cynog Dafis: First, there is no more important issue than the impact of climate change, and the fact that we again have time to consider it is welcome.
Secondly, I repeat what I said earlier about the planning framework, which is vital—and not merely for wind generation. There have been planning objections to important biomass proposals. In one case in Wales, the Newbridge-on-Wye combined sawmill and biomass plant was turned down on planning grounds. We must overcome that sort of obstacle to get the growth that we want, and to allow the redistribution of economic activity on a dispersed basis that goes with it. Such redistribution is an important side effect of moving into renewables. We are talking about decentralisation, embedded generation, small-scale power stations and so forth.
Briefly, on the climate change levy, there is no doubt that to reach the sustainability that we need, we have to use economic instruments to create a dynamic towards that goal. There is no doubt that if one uses such a policy, its effects will be far reaching, and there will be winners and losers. Overall, the planet must be the winner, but some sectors will certainly decline and there will be losers in the process.
A fundamental principle of the shift towards sustainable development is what is called the internalisation of external costs—of environmental costs. That process must happen gradually if we are to create the dynamic towards sustainability that is essential, and it implies a shift in the burden of taxation. To their credit, the Government have begun to embark upon the shift from what are popularly called environmental bads to environmental goods. We must tax those things that are harmful and reward those that are beneficial, which implies a significant change in the pattern of taxation.
The climate change levy is one example of that change and, on that basis, there is no way that it can be opposed in principle, although I agree with the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who said that he would have preferred a carbon tax, which would target carbon more effectively. I add one plea: we must be aware when imposing such a levy of its distributional effects. I hope that I do not sound guilty of special pleading, but the reality is that there is a great danger that the levy, if bluntly applied, will redistribute resources in the United Kingdom from areas that are suffering economic decline to those that are enjoying enormous economic growth—I mean the south-east of England, where there are high concentrations of service-based industries with proportionately low energy costs.
Such a redistribution must be a consideration, and we certainly need compensatory mechanisms. Bluntly applied, the levy could damage the economy of large parts of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. It could damage manufacturing—steel has been mentioned—and energy-intensive sectors as well as agriculture, which is under enormous pressure and could be further harmed. It should not be beyond the wit of man to design a system to redistribute the revenue from the climate change levy to favour the areas that need support and that are being disadvantaged.
For example, it would be ironic if areas of Wales that have been allocated objective 1 funding, because they are performing badly economically and have very low average gross domestic product with all the associated problems, received European money—we hope that they

will receive it—to provide the opportunity for sustainable economic development, but at the same time the climate change levy was sucking resources out of those areas.
I appeal to the Government to bear that in mind. One way to ensure that the effect of the levy is mitigated is to ensure that European funds for objective 1 and other structural fund programmes are additional. At the moment, there is no indication that they are likely to be additional to the existing Welsh block. I appeal for that additionality and sensitivity to the effects of the levy.

Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate. He raised several important points and put forward a coherent argument to assist the Government in preparing their climate change programme later this year.
I think that this is the third Adjournment debate on climate change in the past 15 months, which is a measure of the growing interest in the subject among all Members of the House. It should also be a sign that it is time for the Government to arrange a debate on climate change in their time. The launch of the climate change strategy document towards the end of 1999 will, hopefully, be the time for such a debate.
It is interesting to see how the discussion has moved on during those debates—I have been present for all three—from the principle and the broad-brush arguments about climate change, and even whether it exists, to the detail. During the first debate, some Opposition Members made a significant attempt to deny the existence of climate change. During the second debate, they made a slightly less vociferous attempt to do so. Today, I do not hear anyone denying its existence. We are now focusing on what to do about it, and particularly on the details of the climate change levy. There are many details that need to be resolved quickly, if the Government have not already taken decisions on them.
There are serious issues concerning, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said, the distributional effects from manufacturing to services, and from the north of the country to the south. It should be within the bounds of possibility to construct a scheme allowing for that. Another issue is the impact on renewables and combined heat and power, and it is critical that they should be exempt. It would be utterly self-defeating if the levy were introduced without such exemptions.
I recently visited two companies in my constituency, which I shall not name for reasons of confidentiality. It is interesting to observe the way in which some companies have responded to the proposed introduction of the levy. These two companies are traditional, well-established and well-managed companies, operating in old premises. They have calculated that they will be between £20,000 and £50,000 a year worse off as a result of the climate levy as currently proposed.
It struck me that the management of the companies accepted the need for the levy, and certainly accepted the existence of climate change. Management's concern was about the immediate impact on the company, and the broader impact on manufacturing. In my discussions with the two companies, it occurred to me, first, that they were the only two companies in my constituency that had contacted me, which is a significant indication that the


principle is broadly established. Three years ago, that was not the case, so opinion within industry seems to have shifted substantially.
I was struck, secondly, by the two companies' apparent lack of appreciation of the extra help that they could get, both from the £50 million allocated under the levy, and through other sources, for energy efficiency. The Government must do a great deal more work to publicise and promote the assistance that is available for energy efficiency, especially to small and medium-sized enterprises. The larger companies know what is available, because they have the specialist staff to do the necessary work, or if they do not have the expertise in-house, they know how to buy it in. For small and medium-sized companies, there is much work to be done to promote the concept of energy efficiency and provide advice to them.
We should not focus entirely on the climate change levy. The Government have a much broader programme for responding to climate change. The fuel duty escalator is part of that, and I hope that the Government will stick by the escalator as the years go by—not necessarily at exactly the same percentage, but as an important principle. It should be emphasised that the fuel duty escalator is a fair and progressive tax, because by and large, distance travelled by car closely equates to level of affluence. The Government have already made major strides in tackling fuel poverty, and have significantly increased the investment in assistance for energy efficiency.
If we focus entirely on the details, we are in danger of missing the big picture. My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) accurately painted the big picture, which we cannot ignore. In all our efforts to construct a climate change levy that is workable and that does not damage manufacturing industry excessively, we must realise that if we do not act, and if the levy and other policies are not introduced, in 20 or 30 years it will be extremely difficult to sustain any kind of manufacturing industry. The latest information suggests that we should not aim for reductions in CO2 of only 12.5 per cent. or even 20 per cent., but that within a generation, reductions of 50 per cent. will be necessary.
The strongest argument for the Government to act now is not just that it was a manifesto commitment to move to a 20 per cent. reduction, and not simply that our environmental leadership is part of our international credibility—we cannot over-emphasise the prestige that the United Kingdom has gained on the international stage because of its willingness to lead from the front in the Kyoto negotiations and on environmental policy generally—but that if we do not act now, in 10, 20 or 30 years the challenges facing us will be even greater.
Our future choice is represented by one of two scenarios. Either we must move as quickly as possible to an economy based largely on renewable forms of energy, and a reduction in the burning of hydrocarbon fuels is an essential stage towards that, or in the early years of the next century, we and other western nations will be engaged in an almost permanent series of wars with countries in the middle east that control the last remaining oil reserves. The prospect of permanent war with Iraq over the dwindling oil reserves on the planet is not a viable scenario or one that many people in this country want to envisage.
There is, therefore, an urgent need to tackle climate change and to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. The climate change levy is an important part of that. I hope that the Government will stick not only to our legally binding target of 12.5 per cent., but to our manifesto commitment of 20 per cent.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I echo the closing comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and appeal to the Government to stick to their 20 per cent. target.
I shall not rehearse the arguments for tackling climate change or the evidence for the process of catastrophic climate change that we face. Time is short, so I shall concentrate on practicalities, not least for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury, North—the reality of climate change is widely accepted, except by a tiny minority in the House and outside.
I shall focus on the process of introducing environmental taxes, and the series of mistakes made by Governments that have brought that process into question politically. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) highlighted the political difficulties in tackling the issue. We must change ways of life and ways of doing things, though perhaps not as much as people imagine. There are alternative ways that need not make us poorer, but may protect our environment. Nevertheless, these are politically contentious issues.
The way in which Governments have gone about introducing the three significant environmental tax changes that have been introduced during my time in the House has considerably undermined the process. The first was the claim by the previous Conservative Government that VAT on fuel, which they introduced contrary to the promises in their general election manifesto, was an environmental tax measure. That caused serious problems in making the case.
First, the tax was not well directed at the issue, and it was not a carbon tax—it applied to all fuel and was particularly burdensome on the domestic sector. Secondly, it was contrary to a manifesto promise, so no attempt had been made to establish the basis for it. Thirdly and most significantly, it was a means of raising tax, and was never intended as an environmental tax. By dressing up a tax grab as an environmental tax change, the Conservative Government undermined the case for environmental taxes.
To win the case for environmental taxes, there must be a tax shift, not a tax increase. Why should people accept the need to pay ever more tax by the back door, simply because it is dressed up in a green way? That is no more likely to be popular than any other tax increase. However, if there is a tax shift—if there is a clear cut in other taxes—it can be popular.
The second environmental tax that was introduced, the fuel escalator, had greater success in its early life, partly because the need for it was better understood and, more importantly, because it had broad cross-party support in the House. Both the then Labour Opposition and we Liberal Democrats had the opportunity to stir up opposition to it, because it was a tax increase and failed on that score again, but that opportunity was not taken. Of course, we had points of disagreement on the basis on which it was introduced.
We believe that the fuel duty escalator should have been used to cut other taxes directly, most significantly by abolishing vehicle excise duty—the annual car tax—for most car owners. Something should have come back to people, which would have left many poorer drivers, including those in rural areas, better off as a result. Nevertheless, it was introduced as a necessary measure without coming under the sort of attacks that the Conservative party is making in opposition. Those attacks are particularly disreputable, because it is seeking to wipe out history—it introduced the measure in the first place—even though the escalator was introduced for important environmental reasons which have since become more important.
The fuel duty escalator was not an easy tax to introduce, and it had a more direct impact at the petrol pump and became a significant political issue when oil prices rose. I would have understood if Conservative spokespersons had wanted to review it in the circumstances, but they effectively deny their part in the process. However, the fundamental problem has been that people have received nothing in return: taxes have not been cut, at least not explicitly, nor has there been direct investment in improved public transport, which people might have considered to be an alternative.

Mr. Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on any political party that proposes abolition of the fuel duty escalator to say where it will get the extra tax take from?

Mr. Taylor: That will certainly come up in the Budget should such a move be made. It could be one use for the election war chest, but I would rather see investment in education and health.
The climate change levy succeeds in one key area in which the other two measures did not: there is an explicit link to a tax cut—national insurance. We will reduce taxes on a good—jobs—and instead put a tax on a bad—pollution. Although the Treasury has accepted that argument, the problem is that the tax is not well tuned to environmental issues because the process has been Treasury rather than environment led. The measure is undermining its own case once again and, therefore, the case for other environmental taxes.
The climate change levy is not a carbon tax and goes across the board on fuels, including renewable energy and combined heat and power schemes. As long as that is the case, it cannot credibly be argued that it is an effective environmental tax because we will be taxing the very things to which we want people to switch. If we simply wanted people to use less energy, that would be correct, but we do not want that. There is nothing wrong with using energy and the goods it provides; the use of carbon fuels is the problem.
The measure is being introduced in one go, but the Liberal Democrats propose that a carbon tax should be introduced gradually at about 1 per cent. per annum to stabilise the fall in fuel prices and to give a clear indication that, in the long term, there will be a gradual pick-up. That would be a signal to business to change its capital investment priorities so that higher priority was given to fuel saving, and it would allow it to engage in a

process of change. Introducing the measure in one go simply tells business that it will be paying for its past decisions and that there will be no way out until that process of capital renewal takes place over the longer term. That has fundamentally undermined the tax with industry.
As a result, industry is mounting a campaign effectively to emasculate the tax so that it will have no real impact where it could be of most use in reducing energy consumption and is asking for all sorts of cuts, discounts and exemptions. The measure was badly designed for the purpose it was meant to serve and, if recent newspaper reports are to be believed, the fear is that that may lead to the virtual emasculation of the levy. If that were to happen, for the third time in a row, bad tax design would have undermined the principle of environmental taxes, which I very strongly support.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on initiating a further debate on this important issue. Like other hon. Members, I welcome the general intention behind the climate change levy and what the Government are seeking to achieve, but can my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the way in which the Government put these proposals into practice does not inadvertently discriminate against manufacturing industry in general and those manufacturers who have invested heavily in recent years in reducing emissions in particular? The Government's stated aim of achieving revenue neutrality across the economy could, I fear, inadvertently lead to precisely such discrimination and imbalance.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) highlighted exactly that point and considered the measure geographically, from area to area. I agree with what he said, but I am sure that he agrees that we must also consider its impact from sector to sector. It could mean—and, if crudely interpreted, it will mean—that service industries such as banks, insurance companies, shops, hotels and offices in general will benefit in relation to manufacturing industry. That cannot be the Government's intention and is surely the wrong approach. Indeed, it would damage manufacturing industry, and so jobs and exporters, all over the country.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), I have been approached by companies in my constituency—almost every ceramics company, for example, and other large manufacturers such as Michelin. That may not come as a surprise to him, but, like him, I have been impressed that companies have recognised that the overall intention is virtuous. I have also been impressed by the way in which so many companies—famous names such as Wedgwood, Royal Doulton, Spode, Dudsons, Steelite, Portmeirion, H. and R. Johnson and Gerald Tams, which are the cream of our ceramics industry—have made huge efforts to invest in energy-saving techniques over the past 10 years. They have done so for their own benefit and for their own profits, but also to try to save jobs and ensure the continuity of their industry, so it would be perverse if their good work was not taken into account.
However, precisely because those companies invested in the past, the easy pickings of savings over the next few years will not be available to them as they will be to less


responsible manufacturers, who will easily be able to achieve substantial savings when the levy is introduced. I cannot believe that the Government want to introduce a levy that would benefit irresponsible manufacturers over responsible manufacturers who have so invested.
There are further hidden problems. How will companies such as Acme Marls in Stoke-on-Trent, which makes kiln furniture, be treated? It has been developing a new generation of kiln furniture that will conduct energy more efficiently and reduce the energy needs of its customers. Producing that furniture is more energy expensive and, perversely, it will be increasing its energy costs in order to pass on to its customers techniques that will reduce energy consumption considerably. What it is achieving overall is virtuous, but there is a danger that it will be penalised because its energy costs will increase in order for it to save energy for other people.
Those examples show that implementing the measure will be a great deal more difficult than it appears to be at first, and I welcome the discussions that the Government have been having with manufacturing industry in general, in which the British Ceramic Confederation has been taking part. I hope that that suggests that they recognise the importance of manufacturing industry. We are not a service industry economy; manufacturing industry employs more than 4 million people and still accounts for 60 per cent. of our exports. We must listen to its concerns, particularly the concerns of responsible manufacturers.
I hope that the Government will take those points on board when the discussions with manufacturing industry come to fruition and that they find a way of implementing this important levy in a way that benefits manufacturing and encourages it to invest in energy-saving techniques. They should not penalise the most responsible manufacturers.

Mr. Damian Green: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who deserves our thanks for allowing us to debate the important issue of climate change. I am also happy to assure hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), that Conservative Members take climate change seriously. Although there is still some scientific controversy about whether climate change is caused entirely by human activity or by a curious cyclical pattern that we do not yet understand, I certainly feel that the precautionary principle should apply, and that we should not take the risk with our planet of not doing something about such change.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that the Government have more to do at Bonn, and I entirely agree with him. Moreover, quite apart from Ministers' own activities—which I shall deal with in a moment—one might wish that they would be more persuasive than they have been to date in persuading the United States Government to sign up to the international commitments on climate change, as that would send the most important signal in persuading other countries to fall into line.
Many hon. Members have dealt with the fuel duty escalator. It is absurd for Liberal Democrat Members to advance the proposition that, once a tax has been introduced, it should not only continue for ever, but be

increased for ever. That seemed to be the position that they were expressing in this debate. I remind the House that the tax was introduced as an escalator. What does one do when reaching the top of an escalator? One gets off it. One does not say, "We are staying on the escalator, and we shall make it even steeper."
We have all read leaked reports that the Chancellor has listened to focus groups and is planning either to drop the escalator entirely or to modify it. I therefore caution those Labour Members who have spoken so strongly in favour of the escalator that they may be going off message.

Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me or my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) express the view on taxes that he attributed to Liberal Democrat Members. The fuel duty escalator can, of course, be revisited. The official Opposition should perhaps also revisit their own budgetary figures, which still include the fuel duty escalator.

Mr. Green: I am happy to receive the usual confirmation that the Liberal Democrats are capable of changing policy in the course of a one and a half hour debate.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) made a very important point on forestry and the use of trees as a counter-balance to CO2 emissions. I entirely support him on that important initiative, and urge him and other hon. Members to act strongly against the type of planning proposals made in the past few weeks by planning inspectors, particularly in the south-east of England, which would entail concreting over large green areas and, inevitably, the loss of much tree cover. Giving effect to such proposals would be extremely dangerous.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr specifically mentioned various parts of the country that once had many trees. Our remaining areas covered by trees are precisely those that the Department's own planning inspectors are advising should be concreted over. [Interruption.] I am fascinated that Labour Members find that amusing, but suspect that their constituents might take a different view on the matter.
At Bonn, Ministers will have to defend their record. Before the general election, they set their sights very high, claiming to be the first truly green Government whom Britain had ever had. Only Labour Members who are very deluded or very desperate for office could believe that that promise is being met. However, those who are most concerned about the environment in the United Kingdom certainly do not believe that it is being met.
The head of policy at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said that the Prime Minister
is not interested in the environment and he has surrounded himself with advisers who are not interested either.
Friends of the Earth, commenting on the so-called green taxes in the most recent Budget, said that the Chancellor's
so-called 'green' Budget measures are just tokenistic. They will not combat climate change.
Rebellion is mounting even inside the Labour camp. In the past couple of weeks, the general secretary of the


Fabian Society—which is possibly not often quoted by Conservative spokesmen—has published a pamphlet stating:
It's evident that new Labour is not comfortable on this territory. Labour does not perceive environmental issues to be major priorities for ordinary voters. In fact they tend to see them as positively anti-voter.
I could not have put that better. The Fabian Society believes that the Government are not interested in environmental measures, but actively hostile to many environmental policies.
Before the general election, the Government not only wished to sign up to the Kyoto commitments, as they eventually emerged, but set themselves an extra, voluntary hurdle. Subsequently, we have seen the Government consistently slithering around on the issue, consistently softening their language, so that a commitment has become an "aim", a "target" and a "goal". One thing that the Minister could do today is to give the House a firm assurance that the Government's commitment on the more stringent target is not being watered down.
I shall not enter a debate on whether and how many Ministers should resign if the commitment has not been met because, as has already been observed today, it is not due to be met until 2010, and, very possibly, we may all be occupying different Benches by then. Nevertheless, the commitment is important, and I hope that the Government will stick to it.
What have Ministers done to combat climate change? The answer is, not much. Their first act was to change the planning system for power generation, to make it easier to build coal-fired power stations and to impose a moratorium on the use of gas, which is much cleaner. Although we all know the political reasons why the Government made the change, it would be hypocritical for any Government to make such a change and still to claim environmental credentials. Such a policy is simply not consonant with good environmental practice.
The Government's record on renewable energy has been equally bad. Solar energy has been mentioned often today, but hon. Members should be aware that solar energy is taken much more seriously in other countries. The German Government, for example, have established an explicit target of fitting 100,000 homes with solar panels. Japan's target is 70,000 homes. However, the British Government—who came to power claiming that they would be the greenest Government in history—have established a target of precisely 100 homes. I hope that the Minister will be able to express some contrition about that.
Environmental groups have noticed the Government's record on renewable energy. The RSPB has said that the Government's renewable electricity generation target is not clear and unambiguous—which, perhaps, it should be.
One thing that the Government can do is to set an example—which, in words, they certainly do. There is a fascinating document, entitled the "DETR Greening Operations Policy Statement", which is available on the DETR website and includes as part of the Department's own targets the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions by controlling, where feasible, other gaseous and non-gaseous pollutants which contribute to climate change. For example by switching where possible from HFCs used as refrigerants and in fire extinguishing systems to environmentally preferable substitutes".
In July, in a parliamentary question, I asked a previous DETR Minister what percentage of the Department's refrigerators used hydrofluorocarbons, to which he replied:
Decisions on the purchase of refrigerators are for the Department's local property centres and details are not recorded centrally."—[Official Report, 12 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 12.]
The Government have set their Departments a specific target on how to deal with what they acknowledge to be a very important matter, but they do not collect centrally details on achieving that target. Perhaps the Government's target was, appropriately enough, simply hot air. If they will not set themselves targets or collect information on them, they are simply not taking the matter seriously.
I cannot improve on the arguments that have been made against the climate levy by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the Government think that the levy is an appropriate green tax, they are simply wrong. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said, the levy would be perversely redistributive. Subsequently, some hon. Members discussed how to establish new and complex distributive mechanisms, whereby the tax would be taken from companies in one part of the United Kingdom, distributed to companies in another area—where they may not deserve it—but then taken back by the Government, to be redistributed to more deserving areas. The levy will not be an effective brake on carbon emissions and the need to devise elaborate redistribution mechanisms shows that the Government should do more than the softening that one assumes that they will announce next week. They should scrap the levy so that they can start again with something more appropriate.
The Minister should go to Bonn with a deep sense of humility. Britain's contribution to combating global warming under this Government has been profoundly inadequate. Hon. Members on both sides must hope that Ministers will do better on that vital issue in the second half of this Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing a debate on one of the most important environmental challenges facing the world. He raised several important issues during his interesting speech. I shall deal with them at various points in my reply. I thank him for his courtesy in having given me notice of his main areas of concern.
The debate has been notable for the high level of participation by representatives of the Principality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is always a powerful advocate of the steel industry. He referred to the climate change levy, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis). We have also heard exceptionally well-informed speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), as well as a thought-provoking contribution from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). I am also grateful for the highly environmental contribution of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who represents, if I may say so, the green wing of the Conservative Front-Bench environment and transport team. I hope that he is not too isolated there.
The debate is timely, coinciding with the fifth conference of the parties to the UN framework convention of climate change in Bonn. If climate change is allowed to proceed in the absence of policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, serious damage is expected, threatening global food production, leading to the loss of ecosystems and forcing millions of people to move from our coastal communities. To improve our understanding of such dangerous levels of climate change, last week we published a report on the global impacts of climate change. Compiled by the Hadley centre and other researchers, the report explores the impacts that we might expect if levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were stabilised at 550 parts per million and 750 parts per million—in other words at about twice pre-industrial and present day levels respectively. To reach those levels, global emissions of greenhouse gases would have to be cut significantly. This is the first time that climate predictions from such action have been used to assess global impacts and vulnerability.
The results make worrying reading. Without limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, many parts of the world will suffer severe consequences during the next century. As is often the case, the poorest and least developed countries will be the most vulnerable and the least able to respond. Climate change will add to the problems that many countries already face, such as flooding, hunger and water shortages.
Despite those stark projections, the research shows that there is still time to act. If we can limit emissions, we can slow the rate of change and minimise many of the worst impacts. By stabilising carbon dioxide at 550 parts per million—the level proposed by the European Union to guide emissions reduction efforts—we can limit future temperature rise to an additional 2 deg C, avoid the loss of tropical forests in northern Brazil, prevent 2 billion people experiencing increased water shortages by the 2080s and reduce by about 75 million the number of people flooded each year.
The message from the research is clear: we must take early action if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change and buy time to adapt. However, without early action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, the rate of change will increase throughout the next century. Those changes will impact on society in unprecedented ways. Fortunately, the international community has begun to respond to the threats.
The UK has been at the forefront of international negotiations on climate change. We were instrumental in securing the deal at Kyoto in 1997. That was a truly historic step, when, for the first time, developed countries committed themselves to reducing their combined greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. The European Union agreed to reduce emissions by 8 per cent. and the subsequent redistribution of the Kyoto target in the EU was agreed under the UK's presidency. Under that agreement, the UK's target is a 12.5 per cent. cut. We have gone further by setting ourselves a challenging domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in CO2 emissions by 2010.
Our immediate priority is to make Kyoto work. Last year in Buenos Aires, we agreed an ambitious work

programme that set the sixth conference of the parties—COP 6—as the deadline for reaching decisions on many of the outstanding issues including the Kyoto mechanisms. COP 6 is not far away. It will be held at the end of 2000 or early in 2001. There is still a lot of work to be completed if we are to meet the deadline.
Over the next week or so, COP 5 will concentrate on making as much technical progress as possible. My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment are attending the ministerial segment in the middle of COP 5, which is intended to review progress and help give a renewed political impetus to negotiations.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that the UK meets its climate change targets. We are developing a new climate change programme that will set out how we plan to meet our Kyoto target and move towards our domestic goal. We aim to publish our draft programme for consultation around the turn of the year and to have a final programme in place by mid-2000. The climate change levy will be one of the key elements of our draft programme. Details of the design of the levy are still under consideration following a period of consultation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make further announcements in the pre-Budget statement on 9 November. However, the House will be aware that the Government made it clear that we intend to negotiate agreements with energy-intensive sectors for reduced rates of the levy. At the same time we have said that an additional £50 million will be recycled from the proceeds of the levy to support renewables and energy efficiency.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hill: I regret that I cannot because I am so pressed for time.
I hope that the House agrees that we have adopted a properly balanced approach. We have been keen to stress that action to tackle climate change can bring gain, not pain. A more energy-efficient industry will be more competitive. A better transport system will be good for the economy and for society. Better insulated homes will be more comfortable and cheaper to live in. There are tremendous opportunities for business and for jobs in the traditional and emerging environmental technologies.
Actions speak louder than words. Policies already introduced show that we mean business. Our new integrated transport policy provides a framework for a range of measures that will deliver a better-quality transport system with lower CO2 emissions. Changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to transport taxation will cut emissions. The new climate change levy will encourage businesses to use energy more efficiently. In March this year, we published a consultation paper on "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century", which outlines the options for providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies from renewable sources as soon as possible. We are working with business to develop a domestic emissions trading scheme which will give UK firms valuable experience in advance of the launch of an international scheme. We are committed to publishing our first report on whether to set a national road traffic reduction programme target by the end of this year.
Climate change is a multi-disciplinary issue which will impinge on all regions and sectors. It is a global problem which will ultimately require substantial global action to reduce emissions. However, we all have a part to play in raising awareness about climate change and tackling its causes. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this instructive and interesting debate.

Flu Vaccine (Southern Derbyshire)

Liz Blackman: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of flu vaccine, with particular reference to southern Derbyshire, especially in flu awareness week.
We have just returned from our summer recess, but October is nearly over and we must start to consider the risk to a certain percentage of the population who may well contact flu and other associated diseases during the coming months.
On an average winter day, family doctors will write more than 100,000 more prescriptions than they do in summer. In December alone, the national health service expects 15 per cent. more emergency hospital admissions than in August and local peaks can be much higher, especially when people stay at home longer and have increased close contact with family and friends over the winter holiday period. This year, the situation could well be compounded by the millennium celebrations.
The Government are to be congratulated on their winter pressures approach and the substantial extra resources they provided last winter. My local health authority received £40,000 to enable primary care groups to use nursing home beds and thus reduce in-patient admissions and care for people in the most appropriate setting. That was most welcome.
The winter pressures initiative has developed considerably since its inception. In southern Derbyshire, which includes my constituency, managers have been incredibly proactive in addressing the issue. The winter pressures plan, requested by the Department of Health, is a collaboration between social services acute trusts, local general practitioners and primary care groups to plan for increased demand over the winter period. Southern Derbyshire, along with every other health authority, has identified the need to be better prepared in light of the millennium. It has linked the millennium planning process with the public sector relations group, bringing together many agencies to combat the projected problems.
Southern Derbyshire health authority, along with the Department of Health, has identified that targeting flu vaccination is a vital strategy in alleviating winter pressures. The virus has the potential of presenting as lethargy, a cold, a sore throat or wheezing, requiring a visit to the GP or chemist. The results can vary from minor disruption at home or work to serious, life-threatening epidemics which can have disastrous effects on the NHS, which attempts to treat sufferers and prevent the disruption of other services. Even in a non-epidemic year, the sector of the population whose resistance is poor can suffer numerous deaths as a direct result of flu and related complications. Rightly, that sector has been divided into high-risk groups: people with heart disease, lung disease, asthma, diabetes and immunosuppression; those in long-stay residential care; and those aged 75 and over, who the Government identified as a risk category in 1998.
Why do we regard the vaccine as effective in reducing flu in those groups? It is designed using the strains of virus closely related to those expected to be circulating in any particular year. The World Health Organisation co-ordinates global surveillance, which means that in


most years there is a good match. The vaccines are 70 to 80 per cent. effective—they are not as effective as some, but they are pretty good.
It is also worth considering the cost of not vaccinating effectively. When I asked a parliamentary question last July, I learned that no figures relating to the cost of the flu epidemic last winter were available centrally. We must try to calculate the expenditure on treatment of this acute disease. We must consider the cost of suffering and lives when complications set in or flu exacerbates an underlying condition, and also the loss of wages and lifetime earnings due to morbidity and mortality.
So what is the cost of targeting groups at risk? Of course, there is the cost of the vaccine. According to the latest figures, it will cost between £5.07 and £5.70 per dose. There are also costs associated with administering the vaccine, treating any adverse effects and implementing the immunisation programme and health promotion. On Monday, at the press conference launching flu awareness week, an initiative sponsored by the Association for Influenza Monitoring, the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Royal College of General Practitioners, the chief medical officer and the Minister agreed that immunisation of high-risk groups is their best defence against flu. So we are all saying that prevention is better than cure.
So is this effective measure a success? Apparently, the take-up is not as good as it could be. In southern Derbyshire, estimated target population figures for those in high-risk groups requiring the influenza vaccine have been set at 140,000, yet last winter just over half that number—73,000—were given or claimed the vaccine. However, it is impossible to say what percentage were in the high-risk group. According to Dr. Van Tam, a senior lecturer in public health medicine at Nottingham medical school, who is regarded as something of an expert, the figure could be as low as 12 per cent. or as high as 25 per cent. That is not particular to my area. An article by the Public Health Laboratory Service in 1997, which gave information on the uptake of the influenza vaccine in high-risk groups, noted that the overall uptake was estimated to be low—about 23 per cent.—and was particularly poor in younger members of the group. About 44 per cent. of those aged over 65 and 13 per cent. of those aged between 34 and 49 were estimated to have received the vaccine.
Since 1998, when those aged 75 and over were identified as a high-risk group, new figures should show a substantial increase in the uptake of the vaccine. However, many are still falling through the safety net of adequate preventive provision by way of a simple flu vaccine. The statistics are estimates as the data count the number of vaccinations given or claimed for. There is no routinely collected or available data showing which people in which risk group have been vaccinated.
Individual practices should keep details of who has been given the vaccine and when, but they are not required to report this information. Does the Minister agree that a more coherent and co-ordinated way of collecting, recording, analysing and reporting data would ensure a better understanding of the national picture. Could such a body as the Public Health Laboratory Service be resourced to monitor coverage and uptake of vaccines in risk groups?
Undoubtedly, however, the uptake of the flu vaccination by the target group could be improved. The Department of Health does not currently set targets for increasing the percentage of people in risk groups receiving influenza vaccinations because of the difficulty of accurately assessing denominators for the risk groups. Will the Minister look again at the issue of target setting and consider whether it is possible to set targets, especially in the 75-plus age group and for those in long-term care?
At the heart of flu awareness week is the crucial role that GPs and other health professionals are expected to play. That is the expectation of the chief medical officer, the Government and local health authorities and the overall message of the flu awareness campaign. They rightly focus on the key role of GPs because patient surveys show that the single most important factor affecting whether an individual is immunised or not is whether the doctor or nurse recommended it. However, practice in my constituency varies, as I am sure it does across the country.
Some GPs target the high-risk groups in a rigorous way, as they would if they were calling in women for smears. Others rely on posters or leaflets, or both. Some practices have the information technology and resources to identify the risk groups, but others appear not to have them. The ability of IT to identify and target risk groups is variable. Sometimes the data may be on the system, but not in a way that they can be used. There are also training needs to be considered.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister see any improvements that could be made to ensure a more consistent approach? There is no national target payment, although I understand that payments are made to GPs in some regions for giving out the flu vaccine. Would she consider incentivising GPs to vaccinate at-risk groups?
I noted that one London practice had a very good take-up rate because of a more co-ordinated approach by all the health professionals: doctors, nurses, health visitors and pharmacists. Is my hon. Friend aware of GP practices or health authorities that have a better success rate and would she consider disseminating their best practice?
Is there an opportunity, as the focus widens in health action zones, to incorporate some of those related issue into their remit? Health promotion is a vital part of increasing uptake, and there needs to be an on-going process. There is a timing factor involved in when the flu vaccine is administered, but the overall message about prevention and year-on-year uptake needs to be continually reinforced, as is done in child immunisation programmes.
I applaud the Government's tremendous efforts to be proactive with their winter pressures policy and their endorsement of flu awareness week. The local public health co-ordinator for southern Derbyshire has been publicly very positive about the campaign and the progress being made with the Government's support. I accept that much of the framework for monitoring, targeting and co-ordinating the flu vaccine is historic: we have inherited it.
Given the known effectiveness of the vaccine in the target groups, will my hon. Friend consider the issues that I have raised and whether there is any scope for reconsidering the rationale behind the 75-year-plus group? Will she consider the many countries that target people


over 65 on the basis that that broader group contains the majority of at-risk people? Risk groups overlap, especially in the higher age range. Perhaps she could consider the percentage of deaths attributed to influenza in that category.
The World Bank has described targeted immunisation as one of the most cost-effective public health interventions. Is there scope for further improvement in our approach in the United Kingdom? I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's views and thoughts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) for her excellent timing in raising the topic of flu immunisation during flu awareness week and for her interesting speech and informed points. She is certainly right to say that there is scope for improvement.
This is the time of year, ahead of the winter, when those patients for whom flu can be a serious illness should be getting their jabs from GPs. For most people—those who are otherwise fit and healthy—flu is unpleasant but not serious. The doctor's advice is usually to stay home, stay warm, drink plenty of fluids and look after oneself. For others, however, it can be very serious. As many as 3,000 to 4,000 people, mainly elderly, are estimated to die from flu each year, even in years when flu has been relatively mild.
In the last severe epidemic, in 1989–90, as many as 26,000 deaths over and above those expected were recorded during the epidemic period. Flu is not a subject that we take lightly and it is important that we do everything that we can to prevent flu among those likely to suffer most.
The Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation identifies the risk groups as people with underlying diseases such as chronic respiratory disease, chronic heart or kidney disease or diabetes; and people whose immune systems are impaired by disease or through treatments such as cancer therapy or steroids. They have a higher risk that a bout of flu will lead to serious illness such as bronchitis or pneumonia.
Although the elderly are more at risk, people of any age with those conditions are at increased risk and that risk increases further when an individual has more than one of the underlying problems. The Department of Health recommends, on the basis of the committee's recommendations, that people in those circumstances should get a flu jab before the winter begins. The Department also recommends that people in long-stay residential accommodation should also be vaccinated, because flu, once introduced there, can spread very rapidly. From last year, everyone aged 75 or more has also been recommended to be immunised.
My hon. Friend asks whether we will consider extending that to everyone over 65. Further investigation and analysis are taking place. The Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation is examining the question and will make recommendations according to the evidence of what impact there will be on different groups.
As my hon. Friend says, we have increased the number of vaccinations in the past few years. Last year, more than 7 million doses were given, compared with only 6 million

doses three years ago. This year, we have more vaccine than ever available—more than 8.5 million doses; but she is absolutely right, we could do better. The most recent national data point to low uptake rates, especially among younger people in the risk groups. Ultimately, it is up to patients to decide for themselves whether they want to be vaccinated but we must ensure that they are fully aware of the options and the risks when they make that decision.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that the data that we have are not adequate to tell us exactly what is going on and what we should be doing about it. I want to explain in some detail the data that we have at the moment and the direction in which I believe we should be moving. For a start, we know from the manufacturers how much vaccine will be available in advance of the flu immunisation programme. Manufacturers also give the Department of Health a weekly update at this time of year on the number of doses distributed and what is still available should there be additional need.
We have some idea of the use of vaccines by GPs. Like the analysis given by my hon. Friend today, we can use prescription data to show the number of vaccine doses that GPs are delivering, but she is absolutely right to say that they do not tell us whether an individual GP is targeting the vaccine to those most in need—those identified as belonging to high-risk groups.
Before last year, reliable national estimates of flu vaccine uptake in our targeted groups were not available. Last year, that gap was partly plugged. The Public Health Laboratory Service calculated the national uptake rates using the general practice research database: records from a representative sample of general practitioners throughout the country. That analysis has allowed us, for the first time, to make an assessment of the recent performance of the NHS in delivering flu vaccine policy, as it enables us to track the health condition of those who are vaccinated.
Only by using such analysis can accurate figures be produced for uptake of flu vaccine in the recommended groups. The latest figures from the database show that in the winter of 1996–97, 23 per cent. of the high-risk population were vaccinated and 44 per cent. of those over 75 with high-risk conditions. That was before the aim to include all people over 75 was introduced.
The figures also show that half the total vaccinations given went to people not considered to be at high risk. We plan to use that system from now on to monitor uptake regularly and as a basis for reviewing the implementation of the programme in future and determining what further improvements can be made. That is a major step forward, but we still lack any information on how individual GPs, rather than a sample of GPs throughout the country, are managing to reach their target groups.
The flu immunisation programme is delivered largely by general practitioners and practice nurses. GPs should identify their targeted population through whatever methods are available to them: most can do it through their computer systems; others have chronic disease registers or can identify patients through repeat prescriptions for particular medicines. GPs then need to order their vaccine early in the year so that supply can be assured.
Vaccine is delivered to practices in September to October, when patients need to be contacted to attend an immunisation session or other arrangements are made.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have very limited information on how far individual GPs are achieving that and how wide the variations are across practices in different parts of the country.
Given the Department's commitment to reducing health inequalities and to making sure that people's treatment from the NHS is not dependent on where they live, we consider this matter to be important. However, we are putting in place changes which should make the process easier in future. We are developing standards for electronic patient records and we plan to have comprehensive coverage by the year 2002. This, together with new systems, should enable us to tie together the information available and to examine individual practice level data. It should give us considerable scope to identify best practice across the country, and give us the opportunity to spread that further in future.
The second important strand in my hon. Friend's argument concerns how we spread best practice. First, the Government are promoting immunisation policy at a national level. Tips on how to run a successful programme are published in the Department of Health's memorandum "Immunisation against infectious disease"—the GPs immunisation bible. In that advice—entitled "Increasing the uptake of influenza vaccine"—the memorandum points out clearly that
the single most important factor in patients accepting influenza vaccine is that their doctor recommended it".
Doctors and nurses are encouraged to maintain registers of their patients who should be immunised. On top of this, the chief medical officer writes to GPs each year, reminding them further of the need to target the risk groups.
The Department of Health works closely with the Association for Influenza Monitoring and Surveillance in the build-up to flu awareness week. The purpose of the week is to get the message to the public that if they think that they may be in a risk group, they should see their doctor and arrange to be immunised. Flu awareness week is a highly successful campaign. It is launched through a press conference—chaired by the chief medical officer—to which my hon. Friend referred. Hon. Members may have heard the chief medical officer on "Today", ITN and other media on Friday promoting the message that flu vaccine can save the lives of those at risk.
Flu awareness week is supported by Help the Aged, the British Diabetic Association, the British Lung Foundation, the National Asthma Campaign, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing. Both Help the Aged and the British Lung Foundation have produced flu leaflets to help promote the uptake of immunisation in the risk groups.
Separately, the Department of Health and the NHS have this year run extra activities to raise public awareness of flu vaccine. In September this year—for the first time—as part of the winter planning round, health authorities were provided with a briefing pack, including a press release suitable for local use to support local activity around flu awareness week. The Department of Health has produced leaflets and posters which are available free.
Health authorities should be able to see whether an individual GP is prescribing broadly too little or too much vaccine, given the number of patients he has on his list.
GPs should be able to identify best practice locally. Using these data, health authorities should support those GPs who are not giving sufficient priority to the immunisation needs of their patients. They should encourage them up to the levels of the better GPs.
All practices should be able to identify risk groups and should be able to identify their own level of performance. Health authorities should be promoting good practice across their GPs. Prescribing advisers are employed by health authorities to help promote good prescribing practice, including flu immunisation.
The introduction of primary care groups should increase the peer pressure to follow better prescribing practices, and make the best use of resources to support the health needs of their populations. Clinical governance offers a framework within which primary care groups can work to improve and assure the quality of clinical services for all patients. In addition, we are currently looking at broader accountability and service issues within the GP contract, as is the General Medical Council. The GMC is looking to revalidate GPs and all doctors on the basis of the quality of service that they provide. Together, these new structures should provide a series of routes by which we should be able to increase the uptake of flu vaccine in recommended groups. However, we will continually monitor and examine this matter as progress is made.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked if we would consider introducing targets. I can tell her that I will certainly look closely at the points she makes. It is true that the Department does not at present set national targets for the uptake of flu vaccine. We have aimed at year-on-year increases. This has reflected the historical lack of good estimates of vaccine uptake. As I have mentioned, it is difficult to introduce targets when we do not have adequate information about who exactly is receiving the vaccine in the first place. However, we do now have estimates of flu vaccine uptake on a national level, and the equivalent data at a local level should be a matter for local planning.
Due to the difficulty in accurately estimating flu vaccine uptake, those health authorities which have looked at setting local targets on flu vaccination have focused on the percentage of over-75s being immunised. That is easier to quantify. Nevertheless, age on its own is not the most important risk factor. We must ensure that we do not divert attention from the need to maximise the uptake among everyone with these underlying risk conditions, whatever age they happen to be.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will now be looking carefully at how targets could be used in the future to ensure that we achieve higher uptake without distorting the priority groups. We will review the latest data in the light of additional information from the general practice research database, and we will look at the direction in which the figures are moving in the future.
I would like to thank my hon. Friend once more for raising this timely and important subject, and I commend her on providing the information on what southern Derbyshire is doing to improve flu vaccination and preventive measures. Obviously, the more we can do to prevent the serious nature of the disease, the better it would be, rather than to place additional burdens on the NHS. Delivering flu vaccine in such wide numbers is something that the NHS must plan around—it cannot be


delivered easily and quickly. Individual GP practices and health authorities should make adequate plans to make sure that they reach the target groups.
This is a vital public health measure. I will be looking to see what improvements we can make before next year's winter flu awareness week.

Pig Industry

Mr. David Prior: I am delighted to introduce this debate on the crisis facing the pig industry. Many producers have left the industry, and many more are staring ruin in the face. Desperate farmers have remortgaged their houses, borrowed from their pension funds and built up unsustainable levels of overdraft.
Pig farmers are not subsidised; they do not receive one penny from Westminster or from Brussels. They tend to be small, specialist family concerns. They work 365 days and nights a year, often in conditions that many would find unacceptable. Above all, perhaps, farmers experience intense loneliness, and it is probably for that reason that suicide is so prevalent.
Robert Steven, one of my constituents, is the chairman of the Norfolk section of the National Farmers Union. He said recently:
the position has been getting quite diabolical. While the countryside looks fresh and green, it hides an awful lot of troubles in the industry.
My constituent, Mr. Taylor from Ludham, writes that he has kept pigs since 1944. He says:
I am sorry and sad that my son now has only 20 sows left and these will be gone in a few weeks.
Janet Mutimer—who is down here from Norfolk today—lives close to me in Norfolk. She writes:
Thousands of breeding stock are being slaughtered, jobs on farms and in allied industries lost, our industry is being exported by the Government.
Ian Campbell, the regional chairman of the British Pig Industry Support Group, says that
the industry is dying on its feet with the industry facing melt down.
My local newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press, is leading a campaign
to rescue an industry which is bleeding to death.
The paper says that
if Nick Brown persists in the policy of delay and quietly doing nothing, there will be no trace left of the pig industry.
It is that serious.
Between 1998 and 1999, pig farmers' incomes have fallen by 174 per cent. and they will be in loss for 1999. The UK pig herd has contracted by 12 per cent., and the weekly kill rate has fallen from 330,000 to 260,000, which is the lowest level for 33 years, according to the Meat and Livestock Commission. The average all pig price is stuck at 75p per kilogram, which is 15p below break-even point for most farmers. Imports of pigmeat from the EU increased by nearly a third in the first half of 1999.
What more evidence do the Government need before they decide to take some action? One gets the impression that their policies are more informed by "The Archers" and "Cold Comfort Farm" than by real life, and that they have no concern about, knowledge of or interest in the British pig industry. It is almost as if the Government regard it as a virtual crisis, not a real one. At the MLC breakfast yesterday at which pig awards were given out, there was not a single Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food present.
The Government must and can take the following actions. First, they must stipulate that all local authorities and public bodies must buy meat that complies with the


British standard. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food promised to do that a year ago, but a survey to be published next week shows that more than half of all local authorities have made no change to their purchasing policies. It would seem that the Minister and MAFF do not even have the energy to ensure that bodies under their direct control support British farmers.
The chairman of the British Pig Association wrote to me in the following terms:
The Minister should take a much more vigorous line with retailers and caterers in the private and public sector who undermine the UK pig industry by importing substandard foreign pigmeat and who do not specify the UK's high welfare and food production standards.
I hope today that the Minister will state categorically what she has done in that respect.
Secondly, labelling must be honest. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran), for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) have taken an especial interest in that point. Every consumer must know the origin of the meat that they purchase and the regime under which that meat is reared, fed, slaughtered and processed. Currently, under EU regulations, foreign-reared pigmeat that does not comply with UK welfare and safety standards can be imported, processed and then labelled as British bacon or ham. That is an outrageous situation.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies for the British pig industry is that it has met the highest standards, but ironically it is now being penalised for doing so? As far as its members can see, nothing has been done to address the situation for the past year, since the present Minister of Agriculture took office.

Mr. Prior: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it is one of the tragedies of the situation that this country has led the world in animal welfare. The British farmer, at a capital cost of more than £200 million and on-going operating costs of £2 per finished pig, has rightly abolished sow stalls and tethers. In Europe, sows are still tethered and still spend 275 days a year in a sow stall measuring less than 8 ft long and 2 ft wide. Some are even smaller. Those pigs cannot move or turn around. We have rightly outlawed that barbarous practice in this country.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said:
The sharp rise in pigmeat imports into the UK this year is very bad news for animal welfare, since most of it will have been produced under conditions which are illegal in the UK. If retailers, caterers and the public fail to consider production methods and buy on price alone, they will undermine the advances in farm animal welfare the UK has achieved.
The campaign director of Compassion in World Farming has written to the Minister to say:
I am concerned to learn that, according to recent Eurostat figures, the volume of pigmeat imports into the UK from the EU rose by 34 per cent. in the first five months of this year. Much of this imported pigmeat may have been produced using stall or tether systems in which sows cannot exercise or even turn round throughout their 16-week pregnancies.
The consumer must be given the opportunity to make an informed choice to support high welfare standards by buying home-grown and reared production. Many

consumers are buying pigmeat unwittingly, unaware that it has been produced in conditions rightly banned in this country.

Mr. Anthony Steen: How is that pigmeat coming into this country? I thought that the European Union set certain standards and if the meat is coming in from outside the EU, should not the Commission do something about that?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
Thirdly, the Minister should invoke article 36 of the treaty of Rome to ban meat imports that do not comply with our public health specifications. As long ago as April 1999—nearly six months—a French Government report, which has only just been released in public in the UK, stated:
Residues from toilets, septic tanks and sludge from waste treatment factories are routinely used in the making of European animal feed.
It also reported cases in which meat and bonemeal had not been heated to the obligatory temperature for long enough and in which engine oil and heavy metal residues had been added to feedstuffs.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My hon. Friend mentioned the use of meat and bonemeal in feedstuff production, which is prohibited in British meat production. In my capacity as president of the British Pig Association, I remind the House that the Government were called upon 15 months ago to investigate the possibility of putting some value back into pig offals, but no progress has yet been made. Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows a cavalier approach to the practical suggestions that have been made by the industry?

Mr. Prior: I agree that the Government have taken a wholly complacent and cavalier approach. If the recent revelations about EU feedstuffs are not a major public health issue, I do not know what is. Even the Minister of Agriculture has described the practice as
horrible, revolting, unacceptable and illegal".
If the French can ban British beef, surely we have every right to protect our industry when faced with a flood of imports that pose a risk to public health and consumer confidence.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My hon. Friend has mentioned the recent revelations, but does he have any information about how long the Minister and MAFF have known about the addition of sludge to French animal feed? My investigations tell me that they knew as long ago as May last year, yet it was only last week that the British public were told.

Mr. Prior: I have seen in Reuters copies of the French Government report which was published as long ago as April this year. I was also horrified to hear on "Today" that the Minister of Agriculture has not been in touch with his French counterpart at all in the past week. One wonders whether the Minister realises that there is a crisis in public health in this country.
The Government have still not learned that it is possible to be pro-British without being anti-European and that respect is won by being tough, not by being weak.
This country is increasingly regarded as a bunch of patsies. It is time that we stopped being embarrassed about standing up for British interests. It is time that the Minister of Agriculture stood up for British farmers, not French farmers. It is ludicrous to say that it is safe to eat foreign meat fed on sewage sludge and engine oil, but not safe to eat British beef on the bone.
Fourthly, as the Eastern Daily Press put it,
Mr Brown must remove the shackles of BSE controls from the pig sector.
The Meat and Livestock Commission, which is a statutory body, estimates that the cost of the controls amounts to some £5.26 per pig. That is mainly the direct result of not feeding meat and bonemeal to pigs and the ban on offal disposal, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). The fact is that in single-species, dedicated pig abattoirs, porcine meat and bonemeal can be kept separate and its market value could be realised. The risk of cross-contamination can be eliminated, but the Minister has made no determined effort with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to achieve a exemption for dedicated abattoirs. The Minister does not seem to recognise the importance of getting value back into pig by-products.
More importantly, the Minister should note that as a result of the dioxin contamination in Belgium, Belgian pig farmers have received 80 per cent. grants from their Government as compensation towards their costs of production. That was agreed by the European Commission on the grounds that dioxin contamination was an extraordinary occurrence. Ironically, the Belgian Government cited BSE as an example of an extraordinary occurrence.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfair that the costs of dealing with a public health problem should fall entirely on the producers? I hope that the Minister agrees that it is. A public health problem is a matter of public interest, and the Government should take account of that.

Mr. Prior: I agree completely with my hon. Friend, and that was the approach adopted in connection with beef and, to some extent, with lamb. For some reason, the pig industry has not received similar treatment.
There is a compelling case for compensating pig farmers for the consequences of BSE. That disease was not of their making, but the Government continue to sit on their hands. It is hard not to agree with the chairman of the British Pig Association who has stated:
The industry cannot understand why it has taken so long for the Minister to act more decisively to protect pig producers and pig industry jobs and to stop consumers from being misled by supermarkets and caterers about the production methods of the imported pork that they are eating … It is immoral for the Government to do so little to promote high welfare and food safety standards in the retail and catering sectors.
This is a story of complacency, incompetence, ignorance, misunderstanding and inaction. The Minister of Agriculture has shown himself to be a poodle with two masters—the Treasury and the European Commission. All he offers to British pig farmers is snake oil, sympathy and promises. The export of the British pig industry to

countries with inferior husbandry, welfare, hygiene, health and traceability standards is a national disgrace, and a personal tragedy for many pig farmers.
The Minister of Agriculture is supposed to be the Minister of British agriculture, not foreign agriculture. If he wishes to hand over to his successor any pig industry in this country, he has days—not weeks, or months—in which to act.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) for the way in which he has introduced this debate. He has a clear passion for pigs, and I thank him for allowing me to say a few words, as I too want to stick up for the British pig industry.
The Government and public authorities could play a major part in helping our pig industry when it draws up food procurement contracts. I am advised that they could insert in those contracts an animal welfare clause that would mean that they were not legally obliged to accept the lowest tender. It would be helpful if the Minister of State could deal with that when she replies to the debate. Such a provision would mean that whenever local authorities and the Government take out food procurement contracts they could insist on high welfare standards and therefore specify the expected and required standard of animal welfare.
Inevitably, therefore, the lowest-priced contract would not include that higher welfare standard. Such an approach would ensure that the food contracted for would reach the required standard and would come from animals reared to the necessary welfare standards. Local authorities could implement such a clause in their contracts for school food and other food, and as a direct result ensure that British pork—and other British meat—was favoured. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk said, the standard of our pigs is the highest in Europe, if not in the world. It is wrong that our farmers should be penalised and discriminated against for setting that standard.
Public authorities in Britain could ensure that we support our own industry, because the welfare clause in food contracts would enable them to select British meat, rather than go on importing meat from other countries, let alone from mainland Europe. They could therefore help people to enjoy the delights of the pork, bacon and ham produced in this country.
I shall turn briefly to the matter of labelling. This afternoon and over the next few days, trading standards officers could be directed by the Minister to go out in force and visit supermarkets throughout the country. They could check that the pork labelled as British was indeed produced in Britain, rather than merely packed here.
The supermarkets could play a major part in putting the fun back into British pork. Misrepresentation through inaccurate labelling is widespread, and supermarkets should be marketing the higher welfare standards of the British pig industry. I am sure that the vast majority of people in my constituency would wish to buy British pork, especially if they knew that it came from happy pigs that had been reared properly and safely.
We can distinguish between battery range eggs and free range eggs, and that distinction is widely made throughout the country. Supermarkets could do the same for pork.
British consumers should be able to differentiate between foreign pigs—fed on heaven knows what and kept tethered to stalls in mainland Europe—and British pigs that enjoy a healthy diet and good living accommodation.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on securing this debate. The current crisis in the pig sector is an extremely important issue. He introduced the debate with much feeling, with which I totally associate myself. I have recently had discussions with some of the people to whom he referred. For example, I met Ian Campbell only a week or so ago to talk about those matters.
I also welcome the brief contribution from the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who made some constructive comments in a short time.
I reject the claim by the hon. Member for North Norfolk that the Government have been complacent and cavalier in their approach to the problem. I have been in my post for only a little time, but even my short experience of the great energy that the Ministry has devoted to this issue tells me that the hon. Gentleman gave a false caricature of the Government's attitude to this important industry.

Mr. Gill: I appreciate that the Minister is new to her job, but I assure her that the problems of the British pig industry have been flagged up in this House for a long time now. In my intervention earlier, I referred to a debate that took place 15 months ago, when various problems associated with the British pig industry—with which the Government could have dealt were they so minded—were raised. The fact is that those problems have not been dealt with. The Minister must understand that by the time she gets around to doing something about them, it will be too late for lots of pig farmers. They are going out of business as we speak. I have listened this morning—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is rather a long intervention.

Ms Quin: Given the length of that intervention, it is perhaps worth pointing out that, although this debate is important, there will be another opportunity to raise these and other matters in the House tomorrow, when there will be a debate on agriculture. I am sure that many of the points raised so far today will be picked up then.
It is true that I am new to the role of Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I assure the House that I have read the report on the pig industry prepared by the Select Committee on Agriculture. I am also aware of the Government's response and the action taken in various sectors at that time. Therefore, I maintain my strongly held view that charges of complacency and indifference are completely misplaced. It does no service to the hard-pressed people in the sector to distort the Government's attitude, or to misrepresent the action taken in the past and in hand at present.

Mr. Keith Simpson: rose—

Mr. Paul Tyler: rose—

Ms Quin: Given that this is a short debate, I simply cannot take many interventions.

Mr. Steen: The Minister should give way.

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman has had the chance to speak, so he should allow me to choose which interventions to take. I give way to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister, who referred to the Select Committee report. She will recall that that report suggested that complacency was also evident in the previous Conservative Government. I have spent much time in this House trying to persuade Conservative Members to make the points that they are making now.
However, I have a practical point to make. At the meeting with representatives of the pig sector on 5 October, there was a real attempt to identify whether a new set of support systems, within the context of the EU, could be put in place to deal with the public health issue referred to by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior). Will the Minister give the House a specific assurance that that matter is being examined urgently?

Ms Quin: I shall refer later to that meeting and some of the initiatives agreed at it. It is, of course, true that the problems did not appear as if by magic on 2 May 1997. The previous Government presided over the BSE crisis, so they should not advise us on how to handle agricultural issues. Nor am I prepared to take the advice offered by the hon. Member for North Norfolk when he said that being pro-British does not mean being anti-European; I have understood that point throughout my political life, and it is a strange message from someone in today's Conservative party.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Ms Quin: I shall take only one more intervention.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Putting aside party politics, the Minister must appreciate the desperation of pig farmers all over the country. Whether or not she thinks that they are wrong, she must accept that farmers perceive deep complacency in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They do not want sympathy, but action.

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman should listen both to me today and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in tomorrow's agriculture debate. It is a little odd of him to suggest that we should put party politics to one side following the highly partisan approach that has been taken today. I accept that we have had accusations of many kinds levelled at us, including complacency, but Ministers have met many pig producers—our main concern today—who understand the complexities of the situation and who realise that, far from trying to run away from the issue, we are addressing it continuously and constantly. [Interruption.] May I be allowed to make my points? There are at least two former


Agriculture Ministers in the Chamber and the right hon. Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) ought to know that some suggestions made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk are either impossible or illegal.
In 1995 and 1996, pig prices were exceptionally high, well above the costs of production. Prices were boosted by strong third-country demand and a shortage of pigmeat from the Netherlands because of an outbreak of classical swine fever. When BSE had its first impact, the initial effects on the pig sector were positive as people bought pork and pigmeat instead of beef. That stimulated a particularly big upswing in pigmeat production.
That was followed by a welcome return to confidence in the beef sector, but unfortunately there were also international events that had a negative impact on the pig industry. In particular, there was a sharp fall in third-country demand from Russia, south-east Asia and elsewhere. The result has been a sharp reduction in pigmeat prices in the UK, elsewhere in the European Union and in other countries. UK pig prices have been below the costs of production for more than 16 months. I do not disguise from the House the fact that there is a deep and sustained crisis. The pig cycle, with alternating high and low prices, is well known from the past, but the UK pig breeding herd continues to reduce because of the current serious crisis.
During the past two or three weeks my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has had at least three long meetings with representatives of the UK pig industry to discuss in detail how best to tackle the problem. On Monday, I walked the pig chain in Yorkshire, meeting and talking with pig farmers and processors and visiting supermarkets to discuss the labelling issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I emphasised the importance that we attach to the industry and the ways in which we are considering issues of concern. I know that Conservative Members do not like the fact that there are no easy, instant solutions. If there were, we should wish to adopt them.
Pigmeat is covered by a relatively light regime under the common agricultural policy. Few market management measures can therefore be taken. It is not true to say that the package announced by my right hon. Friend the

Minister of Agriculture a month ago contained nothing for pig producers. Areas of particular concern, such as red tape, the efficiency of the Meat Hygiene Service and the reduction of veterinary cover at low-throughput slaughterhouses, impact on all meat sectors, including the pig sector. However, money has been earmarked to improve marketing, collaboration and competitiveness, which we wish to direct in particular towards the pig sector.
The UK supported the European Commission over last year's major increase in export refunds and the introduction of a private storage aid scheme. We regretted the Commission's withdrawal in September of the private storage aid scheme and the special export refunds to Russia. Last week, as a result, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture wrote to Commissioner Fischler to press for reintroduction of the private storage aid scheme and for the restoration of the special export refunds to Russia.
Some points raised by Conservative Members—[Interruption.] They seem disinclined to listen to the response, but issues have been raised about the identity of British pigmeat and the high welfare and hygiene standards that it meets. Those standards—particularly on welfare—were introduced with substantial cross-party support. A private Member's initiative that had originated with the previous Government was supported strongly on both sides. A lengthy transition period was stipulated for the new regulations.
We want British consumers to understand those standards and benefit from the premium identity for British pork that they may create. The Meat and Livestock Commission's pork mark is an important unifying badge that offers assurances on methods of production and quality of product. We have been active on labelling, on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made some statements at Question Time only last week. We have checked on the accuracy of labels in our shops. I raised the point at the event I attended on Monday, and was told by producers and supermarket representatives that the accuracy of labels has improved. However, we will not be content until loopholes have been properly closed to prevent consumers from being misled—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must end the debate and turn to the next one.

Landfill (Cornwall)

Ms Candy Atherton: I am pleased to have secured this debate today. I understand that this is the first time that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), has responded to an Adjournment debate since his elevation to high office, which I am sure we all celebrate. I know that my hon. Friend is keen to ensure that justice is done and, importantly, is seen to be done.
Sadly, I fear that, in this case, the demands of clearing up Cornwall's rubbish have ridden roughshod over my constituents' needs. The county of Cornwall has run out of landfill sites and my constituents are expected to pay the price.
One case that I shall bring to the Minister's attention concerns a company set up by a local authority that has persistently sought planning permission to extend a landfill site. The case suggests that the relationship between the company and the council is too cosy and that councillors are putting expediency before local needs. The councillors say that there is no alternative, but that is rubbish.
Much of my speech will reflect the anger and distress that my constituents feel about high-profile and much-opposed proposals for landfill sites in the area. I hope that their voices will be heard and that they will not be, literally, dumped upon by local authorities in Cornwall, which have a history of failure and questionable practice.
Two landfill developments are proposed for my constituency. The first, by Cornwall Environmental Services, CES, proposes to extend an existing site at United Downs that borders the villages of Carharrack, Gwennap and St. Day. The company has submitted repeated applications, which the local community has fought for nearly a decade. The latest application is a modified version of an application that was rejected last year following an intense campaign and is currently the subject of an appeal. The second development is the proposal for a landfill site at Carnsew quarry by the village of Mabe. Each proposal has prompted vociferous and informed local opposition and each has highlighted an alarming and unimaginative continuation of landfill as the primary method of waste management in Cornwall.
Furthermore, the way in which Cornwall county council has dealt with the applications raises questions about its methods of decision making. A shady and conspiratorial impression has been created that is undermining local people's faith in some of those elected to represent them on the councils that are responsible for the decisions. In the interests of brevity, I will not detail all the reasons why I have asked the Secretary of State to call in the proposal at United Downs, but I take this opportunity to repeat that request and to state that, if and when it is granted, I will make the same plea about the proposal at Carnsew quarry.
The objections fall into three familiar categories: the potential threats to the environment and to health and a seeming ignorance of local conditions. When considering the previous application at United Mines, the waste planning authority—Cornwall county council—ruled that

health risks were not deemed legitimate reasons for refusing planning permission. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is an unbelievable assertion and I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's views on the matter. It is hard to believe that health considerations are not deemed important enough to merit attention in this sensitive area and, if necessary, to cause the refusal of the applications.
Many local people live in properties close to the borders of the proposed site and the extension. One constituent at United Downs lives a mere 10 m from the site—for those who still struggle with metric measurements, that is less than the length of one cricket pitch. Given the recent suggestions of a link between birth defects and landfill sites, I defy anyone to say that he or she would not be worried, nay terrified, about the prospect of waste being dumped so close to his or her home.

Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend refers to the Dolk report of last summer, which revealed that, on the basis of a good deal of epidemiological evidence, there is cause for concern. Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure that the Government have asked Imperial college to review the matter in more detail? Does she agree that Cornwall county council and other planning authorities should stay their hand until hard evidence is produced? It is a real cause for concern.

Ms Atherton: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has one of the best track records in the House for campaigning on the issue of landfill sites. I congratulate him on his good work.
A proposal for a council directive from the European Commission states that there should be a minimum distance of 500 m between dwellings and site boundaries. Given such guidelines, a distance of 10 m cannot fail to cause more than a little anxiety.
There are major environmental objections to the proposed United Downs site. A 1998 study conducted by Cornwall county council of an area only 200 m from the site states that it is home to protected breeds of butterflies and reptiles and provides possible homes for birds, badgers and protected species of bats. The applicant, CES, has not conducted a survey to assess the existence of, or the threat to, birds, bats or badgers. A request by a local parish council to initiate such a study was refused by the landowner. In addition, to my knowledge, there has been no detailed land instability study of the site. That is especially important in the light of the fact that, when walking in this area of Cornwall, one is never quite sure how many mine shafts are under one's feet.
Water pollution has caused the most alarm at Carnsew quarry. It is feared that landfill material may pollute the water table by seeping through "fractuated" granite rock and into a local reservoir that serves the nearby town of Falmouth. An alleged contravention of water resources legislation at the quarry is currently the subject of a prosecution by the Environment Agency and further contamination would significantly harm the local environment. Incredibly, the application states that the quarry will continue blasting while the landfill site is in operation—which, I suggest, might threaten the stability of that site.
The developers at Carnsew have possibly done more than their counterparts at United Downs to appear willing to answer local residents' questions. However, their


answers are not good enough for residents or for me. Further objections at United Downs concern the area's landscape and the lorries that will move to and from the site. The area is a unique and beautiful part of the county: a mix of countryside and striking examples of Cornwall's mining heritage. Some £8 million has been spent on reclaiming derelict land and on conservation initiatives in the area.
Work on the mines at United Downs has only just begun. The whole area is part of the Government's bid to make this part of Cornwall a world heritage site. Would we plan landfill at other world heritage sites such as the pyramids or the centre of Bath? I think not. I am glad to report that the bid is now with UNESCO and has the Government's support. It is sad that some in Cornwall apparently have so little regard for this unique heritage and plan instead to dump on it.
The fears about an increase in transport, especially heavy transport, are easy to justify in this landscape. Road is the only viable method of access, and I am sure that hon. Members can visualise with horror an increasing procession of HGVs winding through Cornish lanes, many of which are single track only and do not meet planning policy guidance issued by my hon. Friend's Department.
I applaud the Government's wish to make waste management strategy more sustainable and integrated by encouraging alternatives to road and by locating facilities appropriately—I just wish that that approach would be adopted in Cornwall. The parish councils and people from communities adjoining United Downs were under the impression that the current landfill would last for 10 years. People purchased their houses believing that there would come a time when the monster would stop. However, the company changed the ground rules every few years and people woke to find that yet another extension was planned and another fight had to be fought. The balance is always tipped in favour of the company: it can appeal if it does not like the decision, but the local community cannot.
My constituents have been told that the site will be active for another 10 years, which will consume more land, woodland and countryside. It seems that, after the planning applications are approved, everyone goes away and no one thinks about the problem until there is another application to extend the site. It is the lack of a renewable alternative strategy that has so infuriated my constituents and me.
A draft waste local plan is expected, but is on ice at present because a series of reports is being produced. One of those reports—commissioned by the county council—states how desirable it would be to have co-ordinated facilities that were sensibly located so as to ensure efficiency and minimal impact on the environment. I agree with that point, but unfortunately it is a little too late for my constituents. Such a strategy should have been in place many years ago.

Mr. Andrew George: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Atherton: No. I regret that, as I have already given way once, I cannot do so again. I am anxious that there should be time to hear the Minister's speech.
That strategy void is the reason for only 5 per cent. of Cornwall's waste being recycled; that figure is lower than the national average and is the lowest in the south-west. There is an alternative. Having won objective 1 funding, we are now able to explore waste-to-energy programmes close to local transport links. That will be good for the economy and for the environment. I am aware that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is extremely keen on the Hayle proposal, which I certainly supported. Unfortunately, that thinking is taking some time to pervade minds within the halls of the county council—despite the fact that the people of the county highlighted the importance of the environment during our massive objective 1 consultation earlier this year.
Throughout the various processes, the relevant local authorities' lack of forward thinking has not helped them in their appeal to local people. Public consultation has been minimal, so nothing has been done to build public confidence. We all know that such confidence is the key to proposals such as these; that confidence does not exist at present.
This dismal situation is made all the worse by serious questions about procedure. The applicant for the United Downs proposals—CES—is an arm's length company, set up by the county council to organise waste management in Cornwall. The company was formed in the early 1990s without competitive tendering. Senior council officers and councillors sit on its management body. Throughout its existence, CES has fought long, protracted planning battles with the local community—sometimes, I understand, receiving funding from the county council itself.
I am most concerned about when county councillors decide issues for which they have a statutory responsibility. To put it simply, the council has a responsibility for waste, and few ideas other than landfill to solve the problem; and the council makes the decisions. "Arm's length" CES may be, but is it not time for clear guidelines on how such bodies should work, and be worked with, in those circumstances?
Of further alarm is the fact that such applications seem, when before the relevant committees, to provide an occasion for the use of "substitutes", giving an extremely dubious impression to the local community. Members of the county planning committee leave the committee and are replaced—often at the eleventh hour—by colleagues who vote in their stead. It is not hard to guess what conversations might go on behind the scenes. That impression will always cause alarm to those affected by proposals—especially on matters as sensitive as those that we are discussing.
There is little case law on substitutes and councils organise such matters largely as they want, using their standing orders. I find that most disturbing; a system must be introduced that is transparent enough to restore people's faith in those whom they elect. Anyone who has served on a planning committee will know that it takes some time to understand the complexity of the structure plans with which they work. How can a substitute understand all the complexities in only a short time? It has also been suggested to me that different councillors trade votes on different applications. I allege that that is unhealthy.
In addition, there seems to be no small amount of inter-council power games. The two sites lie in different district councils, each of which is a statutory consultant


in the planning process. At the time of the previous application at United Downs, both district councils voted against the proposals. However, on another occasion, Kerrier district council, whose administrative area includes Carnsew quarry, approved the plans for United Mines. It has been suggested that that was to get the problem off its patch. A more serious allegation is that it was a ploy, hatched by the various parties—an implied threat—to push Kerrier district council towards supporting the United Downs application.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that makes a mockery of local democracy, and leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of the people affected by those decisions. Obviously, those working at the United Downs site are keen to ensure that their work continues—as are waste hauliers, who currently face severe restrictions in coping with reduced access to United Downs. I want a comprehensive waste-to-energy programme that will provide employment for those affected.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on the various issues that I have raised. I hope that what I have recounted today will lead to a re-think on the way in which issues affecting so many people are handled by local authorities. This saga is one of inaction and, consequently, an ill-thought-out panicked reaction that leaves my constituents picking up the pieces—and messy pieces they are too.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on securing this debate on a topic of fundamental and increasing national importance and of particular concern in Cornwall. It is good to see so many Members who represent Cornish constituencies in the Chamber.
My hon. Friend made a robust speech in which she raised some serious issues. I shall attempt to address them in the short time available, but we might also need to correspond on some matters.
Before replying to my hon. Friend, I should inform the House that, on Monday, Cornwall county council issued planning permission for one of the proposals that she mentioned—the United Mines extension. That was unexpected. The Government office for the south-west understood that the council had not intended to issue permission before today's debate, without prior notice. I am disappointed that it has gone ahead without waiting for today's debate to take place.
The Government knew of the application. However, as far as we were aware, it did not raise issues that justified the Secretary of State calling it in for his determination. None the less, I was prepared to come to this debate with an open mind—ready to respond to any important new issues. Unexpectedly, the county council has now taken the application out of our hands by exercising its responsibility to make the decision.
Cornwall faces a common problem—especially in the south of England. Existing landfill sites, on which we are currently heavily reliant, are filling up quickly, and better alternatives are needed. In England, we currently landfill more than 80 per cent. of our municipal waste, and about half our industrial and commercial waste. That has been

a favoured waste management option for rural and urban communities because of its low cost and the ready availability of old mines and quarries.
Before commenting on the problem in Cornwall, I shall make some points on the Government's draft waste strategy. Landfill is the least desirable means of managing waste; re-use of materials, recycling, composting and energy recovery from waste are usually preferable because landfill makes the least use of waste. We realise that landfill will continue to play a role in waste management in this country, but we must work together to reduce our traditional reliance on it. Those policies and aims are set out in the draft waste strategy, "A Way with Waste", which we published earlier this year.
My hon. Friend referred to the EC landfill directive. The Government are strongly committed to the safe management of waste facilities, including landfill sites. Waste management activities have been tightly regulated since a licensing system was introduced under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. That system was replaced by the waste management licensing system now in force under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The purpose of the licensing system is to ensure that waste is managed in ways that protect the environment and human health.
The controls will be reinforced by the introduction of the EC landfill directive, which was adopted earlier this year. It will bring in much more rigorous controls for landfill across the EU, most of which are similar to those already in place in this country, and other member states will be brought up to our high standards.
Planning policy guidance note 10 was published in September. It provides advice on how the planning system should contribute to sustainable development through the provision of the required waste management facilities and on how that provision is regulated under the statutory planning and waste management systems. It sets out the general policy context and the criteria for siting facilities and advises waste planning authorities on the factors to be considered in relation to the range of waste management options available. The guidance should help in the preparation of local waste plans and in the determination of planning applications. However, it does not suggest which waste management options might be appropriate to any particular set of circumstances. That will be a matter for individual local authorities, informed by the national waste strategy.
One of the key aims of PPG10 is to strengthen the regional role in planning for waste management: therefore, it proposes the establishment of regional technical advisory bodies in each region. Those are important because local authorities should not consider the needs of their own area in isolation—waste management solutions may sometimes cross local or regional boundaries. The regional technical advisory bodies will assemble data and provide advice to the regional planning bodies on suitable options and strategies for dealing with waste in each region.
PPG10 also draws attention to factors that may be material to the consideration of proposed waste management facilities. For example, landfill operations can deal with a wide range of wastes and fluctuating amounts for disposal, and can provide a relatively clean source of fuel—methane—for heat and power generation. Landfill may also be the only practical way of finally disposing of some materials, such as incineration residues


and other inert materials that cannot be recycled or treated further. However, landfill does require large areas of land and, if degradable materials are involved, can lead to landfill gas and other hazards.
Many factors influence the location of new waste management facilities. Landfill is commonly used in quarry restoration, but there may be opportunities for other sorts of waste management facilities at some quarried sites. All locations and the choice between different options will be for the waste planning authority to decide. Such decisions should be based primarily on a consideration of the best practicable environmental option for a particular type of waste involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne suggested that the local authority had said that health risks were not deemed to be a reason for refusing an application. In fact, the position is slightly different from the one that she set out. It is true that where proper management of the site can eliminate the health risk—that is, where the health risk arises from the management of the site—that health risk is not a factor that must be taken into account when considering the application. It is a matter for the Environment Agency to investigate. However, if the location of the site makes it impossible to operate without health risks, that would be a planning ground to be taken into account.
My hon. Friend said that the EC landfill directive recommended that dwellings should be at least 500 m from a landfill site. Apparently, that provision was contained in an early draft, but was eliminated from later drafts. Therefore, the landfill directive makes no specific recommendation on distance. The proximity of dwellings is a factor to be taken into account by planning authorities, but there is no set distance to be observed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) referred to a possible link between birth defects and landfill sites that accept hazardous waste. A study reported in The Lancet, which formed the basis of media reports, did not establish cause and effect, but concluded only that there was a need for further study. The Government have commissioned a small programme of research into the subject, the initial findings of which should be available next summer.
Planning policies for waste development in Cornwall will be set out in the Cornwall waste local plan. Cornwall county council published a draft plan for consultation in March 1998. The key issues in west Cornwall were: the main landfill facility, at United Mines near St. Day, which was projected to be filled in 2002; the suggestion that recycling rates could be raised from 6 per cent. to 15 per cent. during the period of the plan, which runs to 2011; and the creation of a waste-to-energy plant, which would create new waste management capacity, but which could not hope to be commissioned before 2005.
The draft plan identified a gap between the filling of United Mines' facility and the commissioning of a long-term replacement. The draft plan suggested overcoming that gap, either by transporting waste to east

Cornwall or beyond, which would add to heavy traffic and would be contrary to the proximity principle, which states that waste should be disposed of as close as possible to its place of generation; or by finding additional landfill capacity in west Cornwall. The Government office for the south-west responded to the draft plan on the Secretary of State's behalf. The main points were that: the plan should embody national objectives for waste management set out in "Making Waste Work", now replaced by "A Way with Waste"; and, in particular, that it should reflect the proximity principle.
The plan seemed to treat landfill as a favoured option, rather than a last resort. The Government office suggested that, instead, the council should work towards the principles established in the national strategy, including reducing dependence on landfill. The plan should also outline the practical steps needed to put those principles into practice: for example, it did not state what mix of waste management methods was favoured for the long term, nor did it contain any specific development proposals or locational guidance.

Mr. Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mullin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so, but I have only three minutes left and I think that he will want to hear what I have to say about Cornwall.
It is important that the council confronts the issues quickly, especially as the plan showed that important choices will have to be implemented by about 2005. The plan should make those choices and propose the key investments to put them into practice. I understand that the county council intends to deposit its local waste plan formally in the spring. I also understand that the council now—perhaps belatedly—accepts that Cornwall's heavy dependence on landfill will have to change and that waste-to-energy technology will have to be developed. I welcome the county council's adoption of that forward-looking approach and I expect it to be reflected in the deposit draft of the local plan, both in the overall strategy and in the identification of actual sites. My officials will continue to work with the council, to encourage it positively to plan the necessary facilities.
Several planning applications related to the disposal of waste in Cornwall have come to my Department's attention in recent months. They include applications at Hernis farm landfill site for a weighbridge and recycling centre with a wood-burning unit; two applications by County Environmental Services Ltd. to extend the United Mines landfill site at St. Day, for which permission has just been issued; and an application by Aram Resources plc for the restoration of an existing quarry by landfill at Carnsew quarry near Mabe. I cannot comment on the merits of those proposals, since to do so could prejudice the Secretary of State's impartial role within the planning system. However, I can advise the House that the Hernis farm applications did not warrant our intervention. Local residents expressed concerns about the possibility of landfill development there in future, but any further proposals will have to be determined on their merits.
I have already said that permission for the United Mines extension has just been issued. We received several late representations asking that the application be called in by the Secretary of State. I should explain that the Government's policy is to leave planning decisions as far as possible in the hands of locally accountable planning authorities, so the Secretary of State is highly selective about calling in applications. In general, he will take that step only in cases where issues of more than local importance are raised, so only a small proportion of applications are called in each year. The Carnsew quarry application is in its early stages—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited, or has been the subject of a Resolution of this House to dispense with Standing Order 171A within the present Session, or has been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them forthwith.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Ministerial Liaison

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the arrangements for liaison and co-ordination between the First Secretary and himself. [94073]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have a formal meeting with the First Secretary every week and we often speak informally.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion and wish him well. As this is his first question, I shall lob him a full toss. Can he confirm to the House what will happen when the Assembly takes a decision that will involve additional public expenditure? Will it be met by the Treasury, will it come out of the Welsh Office budget—in which case, there would obviously have to be adjustments with a cut made elsewhere—or does the Assembly have no power, being only a talking shop?

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks on my promotion, but less grateful for his other comments. Of course the Assembly is not a talking shop: it deals with £7.5 billion of expenditure. That has to be contained within the block that comes from this House.

Mr. Denzil Davies: On co-ordination between this House and the Assembly, does my right hon. Friend agree that there could be confusion on health matters? We have a national health service, but we have devolved power to the Assembly. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Health announced that the new flu vaccine would not be available on the health service. A few days ago, there was an announcement appointing a national cancer director. There was some confusion about whether those initiatives apply to Wales; in the latter case, it is still not clear. Will my right hon. Friend consider the overlap between the two jurisdictions?

Mr. Murphy: I shall be delighted to respond to my right hon. Friend's request. When I meet the First Secretary tomorrow, I shall put that point to him. On my hon. Friend's general point about announcements made by the United Kingdom Government, if additional expenditure is involved, consequential additional block grant is given to Wales. I take his general point and will be back in touch with him.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: May I be the first from the Plaid Cymru party officially to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment? What assurances can he, as the person responsible in the Cabinet for arguing the case for Wales, give the First Secretary

that European funding for Wales will be additional to the block grant and will not be distributed to us under the Barnett formula?

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks and thank him and his colleagues. He was obviously referring to objective 1 funding. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in very strong terms in this Chamber a week ago that he would not let Wales down. That is the general situation as regards the Government's view. The hon. Gentleman also knows that, in the first year of the scheme, it is for the Assembly itself to decide how to deal with any match funding. The Assembly has addressed that, and I am assured that it can cope. The three years following are for the comprehensive spending review, and I shall play my part in ensuring that the case for Wales is made in the negotiations.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Should there not be a little humility among the nationalists about objective 1 status? They said that we could not change the map or alter the statistics for the valleys and west Wales, but we have done so. There should be no triumphalism about that, because objective 1 status merely reflects the comparative poverty of the valleys and west Wales. That is in part due to the pouring of funds by the Conservative Welsh Office into Cardiff bay at the expense of the rest of Wales.

Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for objective 1 status, which we would not have achieved in Wales if there had not been a need for it. That did not come from the moon; it resulted from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer negotiating through the night in Berlin to get those funds. No one should suggest that, having successfully negotiated an objective 1 deal, they will let Wales down—they will not.

Mr. Owen Paterson: In the Welsh Affairs Committee yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the primary role for himself, the 32 people in his office and the £1 million that they cost each year is to ensure that the devolution process beds down and to liaise with the First Secretary. Would it be appropriate for that to be reviewed in two years, and who should carry out that review?

Mr. Murphy: The most important review stems from the mandate that the people give us. In 1997, the people of Wales gave the House a mandate and a majority voted in the referendum for an Assembly in Cardiff that fitted in with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the devolution settlement; that is what I have to protect and that is what will be done. It is vital that hon. Members understand that Assembly Members are charged with the great responsibility of seeking jobs for the people of Wales and looking after their health and education. It is important also to understand that the mandate came from the people, and decisions must be made with the people.

Mr. Alan Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the difficult job that he is undertaking in providing an interface between the Assembly and the Cabinet of which he is a member. However, he will have to be able to speak to Westminster


Departments on equal terms. Is he satisfied that he has been given enough policy-level, analytical officials in his Department to enable him to carry out that responsibility?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, I am. I have extremely assiduous, hard-working and eager people in my office who deal with the advice for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are responsible. Between us, we sit on 21 Cabinet Committees, in which it is of course important that we have sound advice. Obviously, I shall keep the situation under review, but I have no immediate plans to change the number of people who work in the Department. We shall have to wait and see.

Mr. Nigel Evans: May I be the third person on this side of the House to congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales on his new role? The saying "three times for a Welshman" is true in this case. We shall certainly monitor the Secretary of State to ensure that he has a role. One of his responsibilities is to liaise with the First Secretary. What discussions will he have with the First Secretary about the dreadful plight of farming in Wales? Will not extra resources be necessary to assist Welsh farmers at this difficult time?

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Over the past few weeks and months, I have of course been discussing the plight of Welsh farming with the First Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it was only at the end of September that the Minister of Agriculture said that there would be a substantial increase in the funds to help hill farmers in Wales, which amounted to between £15 million and £16 million for Welsh farming. In addition, during the past few weeks, I have met the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales, and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that answer. Does the Secretary of State feel at all hampered in his discussions about extra funding for agriculture in Wales by the fact that the Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary, Christine Gwyther, lost a vote of confidence in the Assembly but refuses to resign? Will the Secretary of State use his influence with the First Secretary to ensure that, if she will not resign, she will be sacked? It is either her job or those of farmers in Wales. Whose job is more important to the Secretary of State?

Mr. John Bercow: Answer that one.

Mr. Murphy: I have not started yet. The Agriculture Secretary in Cardiff did exactly what anyone else would have done: she explored every possible avenue by which funds could be obtained to help Welsh farmers. The vote of confidence is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Assembly and the First Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will understand that obviously I have discussed those issues, but I think that the Agriculture Secretary did her best.

Mr. Llew Smith: I declare a non-financial interest in this question. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next meets the First Secretary, will he share with him the disgust felt by the

people of Gwent—and, I assume, by him—at the decision of the Welsh Arts Council to treat the opinions and support of the people of Gwent with disdain in refusing to allow Gwent theatre in education the resources to carry on the work that it has done for 23 years and instead to give it to a company in Cardiff that has no experience, no support and no excellence in the field? Will my right hon. Friend inform the First Secretary that, if the Welsh Arts Council refuses to reverse that decision, the people involved must resign?

Mr. Murphy: I completely understand my hon. Friend's point. I have had representations from other Members who represent Gwent, and I am a Gwent Member of Parliament. I understand the good work that has been done by the group and I will certainly inform the First Secretary when I meet him tomorrow about the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and others.

New Deal (Young People)

Mr. John Bercow: What discussions he has had with his colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment about the impact on Wales of the new deal for young people. [94074]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have held several discussions with a range of organisations involved in the Government's welfare to work agenda in Wales and plan to meet my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities shortly.

Mr. Bercow: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, wish him well in fulfilling his responsibilities and thank him for his initial answer. Given that the new deal for young people costs £11,333 per job, making it 25 times as expensive as previous job schemes, that three quarters of those who have joined the scheme in Wales since January 1998 have so far failed to find jobs and that unemployment in Wales has just risen by 10,000, what discussions does the hon. Gentleman intend to have about securing the better value for the money that the Secretary of State has begged his Cabinet colleagues to provide?

Mr. Hanson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. This is a great opportunity for me to come back from the silence of the Whips Office to speak in the House. The hon. Gentleman is really saying that he does not approve of the new deal. I hope that he will come with me at the next opportunity to meet the 13,000 people in Wales who have received employment under the new deal to tell them that he intends to scrap that scheme. Some 9,400 people under 24 have secured jobs and there has been a 51 per cent. fall in 18-to-24-year-old unemployment since the new deal began. If he intends to scrap the scheme, he should be honest and say so. We believe in the scheme, and it is valuable for the people of Wales.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I also congratulate my hon. Friend on leaving the Whips Office. One modest pleasure at the moment is that Labour Welsh Members are Whipless. I support my hon. Friend


in his remarks about the new deal in our area. It has offered real opportunities in skills training and for jobs. The new deal should be supported by targeting directed money from objective 1 funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that objective 1 needs to be used to create sustainable employment and real training opportunities rather than, as we fear, being scattered to the four winds and chopped into little pieces? If that happens, the funding will not have the impact that we need it to have on the Welsh economy and our gross domestic product per capita.

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend made two valuable points. First, the new deal is about training and skill development, as well as job creation. It is valuable for people to have new skills and new development. The people whom I have seen on the new deal have benefited tremendously from those opportunities. The second point about objective 1 is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I want the maximum use of that funding. We need to produce top-quality schemes that integrate Government programmes to ensure that we have wide-ranging skill development, long-term jobs and sustainable development for the valleys and for west Wales as a whole.

Welsh Assembly Decisions

Mr. Simon Hughes: What arrangements are in place for the reporting of the decisions and resolutions of the Welsh Assembly to the United Kingdom (a) Government and (b) Parliament. [94075]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): No such arrangements are required by the Government of Wales Act 1998. However, the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations provides for the exchange of information generally, and in particular for the devolved Administrations to notify legislative measures to the UK Government when they are proposed and when they are adopted.

Mr. Hughes: The London Welsh team is happy to congratulate the new Government team, at the same time as it commiserates with the team on the pitch on Saturday.
If the Welsh Assembly or any of its Committees made a decision or passed a resolution that the Government's failure to allocate British money to match objective 1 money was hindering private investment and therefore not achieving the best deal for the valleys and west Wales, what could Members of this House do to make sure that the Government deliver for Wales and its Assembly?

Mr. Murphy: I begin my thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the Welsh rugby team. The House understands what a tremendous task it faced and how well the team did over the past few weeks.
I assume that the hon. Gentleman's question is as much about objective 1 funding as about the arrangements in the House. I told the House a few minutes ago that the Prime Minister's statement was extremely important in setting the scene. There are opportunities in the House to discuss those matters as we go forward. With regard to the private sector, I have met the Confederation of British

Industry in Wales, which is anxious to ensure that it takes part in the schemes that will start flowing next year, when the plan is approved by Brussels. As on many previous occasions, the private sector can start planning for that. The CBI has told me that it will do so, and I am sure that it will.

Mr. Chris Ruane: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key issues in Wales are jobs, objective 1, health and education, and that that agenda is being marginalised by the schoolboy antics of the Opposition parties in Wales, which tabled two censure motions in a four-week period, one of them dealing with what the Agriculture Minister in Wales puts into her digestive tract? Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps he is taking, in co-operation with the First Secretary, to get back to the real agenda in Wales?

Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend about the priorities in Wales. In my discussions with the First Secretary, we shall emphasise them. I also agree with my hon. Friend that, in a fledgling democracy, it is important to get people's confidence in the Assembly. I am not convinced that events over the past few weeks have succeeded in doing that.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Select Committee on Defence has just come back from Washington, where it is much easier to obtain information about the British Ministry of Defence than it is in London. That illustrates the point of my question. How can there be a satisfactory exchange of information between the Welsh Executive and the United Kingdom Government if there is no legal underpinning to the requirement of each for confidentiality?

Mr. Murphy: There is plenty of opportunity for liaison between the UK Government and the Assembly. I said earlier that I regularly meet the First Secretary. There are provisions in the memorandum of understanding, which sets the scene, and in the accompanying concordats, to ensure that there are proper arrangements between the Assembly and the UK Government.

Dental Services

Mr. Martyn Jones: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health about the pay, recruitment and retention of NHS dentists in Wales. [94076]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on those issues. When considering the annual pay settlements for NHS staff, the pay review bodies will take evidence from the Assembly, along with the Department of Health and other devolved Administrations.

Mr. Jones: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that everyone in the UK will have access to NHS dentistry. Will my hon. Friend therefore meet his


colleagues in the Department of Health and the Assembly, in order that my constituents can get access to NHS dental services as soon as possible?

Mr. Hanson: Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement of greater access to dentists throughout the United Kingdom. I have had discussions with my colleagues in the Assembly, who are keen to take forward plans for improved dental services in Wales. That is in marked contrast to the failure of the previous Tory Government to provide adequate dental services throughout Wales and the United Kingdom. People in Wales will have access to NHS services, thanks to the Assembly and the support of central Government.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the principal problems with dentistry is the number of new dentists entering the service? Will he tell the House what steps he is taking in Wales, and what steps the Government are taking elsewhere, to encourage more people to enter the dental profession, and thus to serve the large number of people who do not have access to dentists?

Mr. Hanson: The UK Government are taking steps to encourage the provision of additional dentists for the community at large. The Assembly is responsible for that matter in Wales and it has earmarked additional funds of £10 million to ensure that there is greater access to dental services. Under devolution, the situation is complicated: the Assembly is responsible for the day-to-day executive decisions and will take forward its own policies, and the UK Government seek to improve access to dental services as a matter of priority.

Block Grant

Mr. Win Griffiths: When he next plans to meet the Assembly First Secretary to discuss the block grant for 2000–02. [94077]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the Assembly First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues.

Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend make one of his first acts in office the achievement of the triple crown by Wales? We secured the first part by brilliant negotiations in Brussels to achieve objective 1 status in Wales and the second part with the provision of money in the first year to ensure that objective 1 status gets fully under way. The sooner the Opposition stop carping about that, the more the private sector in Wales can be confident of what we want to do. In carrying out the block grant negotiations, can he achieve the third part of the triple crown by ensuring that we have the additional funding necessary for objective 1 to continue right through its course to success in terms of jobs and prosperity for people in Wales?

Mr. Murphy: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I recently met my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to discuss objective 1 and he is fully aware of the significance of such funding for

Wales. He has instructed his officials to meet those of the National Assembly to start negotiations on those important issues.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I wish the Secretary of State well in his work, but I must return to the question of the adequacy of matched funding for 2000–01. Does he accept that the budget for the coming year was set before there was any suggestion of European strategic funds becoming available? Therefore, if the matched funding of up to £180 million has to be met from within the Welsh block, there will be correspondingly less money available for health, education and the other services. He cannot have it both ways. If the money has to come from within the block, is he telling us that the people of Wales will have to pay in terms of health and education for taking up the money available from Europe?

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's opening remark. No, I am not saying that. As he is a Member of the National Assembly, he will understand that it is for the Assembly to determine its budget, but it has assured me that the £75 million to which I referred earlier is made up of former European regional development fund moneys, overhang from those and end-of-year flexibility, and in other ways as well, and that it will not affect those services to which he referred.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the UK Treasury has a crucial role in relation to objective 1 funding, it is equally important at the moment to ensure that we have good-quality private-public partnerships in place to take full advantage of this excellent opportunity? Does he further agree that the constant and negative carping by opposition parties about the role of the UK Treasury can serve only to undermine the whole project?

Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to emphasise the positive aspects of obtaining objective 1 funding. We must ensure that it is used for jobs, to change the economy of Wales and to help our rural areas. It is important that we pull together as a team in Wales to ensure that we benefit from good, high-quality schemes. The more we concentrate on the positive aspects, the more important it will be for us to obtain that money.

Mr. Richard Livsey: When the Secretary of State meets the First Secretary, will he discuss the funding of the arts in Wales? He will have heard the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) complaining about the treatment of Theatr Gwent. The same thing has happened to Theatr Powys and the result is underfunding of the arts in Wales. Will he please try to do something about that when he discusses block grant with the First Secretary?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, I will.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the First Secretary the Government's major research report on disability in Great Britain? Will he


particularly draw to the First Secretary's attention the finding that Wales has the highest incidence of disability in all of Great Britain? Will he also discuss with him the possibility of using objective 1 status for high-quality projects involving the disabled, both in the private and the public sectors?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, I will—I assure my hon. Friend that I will do precisely that. After today's events in the House, I shall have a very long discussion with the First Secretary. Like me, my hon. Friend represents a valley constituency that has been scheduled as an objective 1 area for precisely the reasons to which she referred, such as the number of disabled people and the deprivation levels that we face. That is why we have objective 1, and that is why we must not waste the opportunity of a lifetime.

Mr. Robert Walter: I must continue to press the Secretary of State on the issue of objective 1 funding and the block grant. Although any discussions that he will have with the First Secretary will be dominated by the requirement to provide £885 million of Government money in the next seven years, objective 1 starts in Wales next year, whereas the block grant negotiated under the comprehensive spending review takes us through to 2002. The CSR does not contain any provision for objective 1 funding.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the Welsh Affairs Committee that he was having discussions with the Chief Secretary. However, we do not know the outcome of those discussions. In the Assembly election campaign, the Prime Minister said that he would not let Wales down. The Secretary of State is committed to providing £374 million in the next two years. Where will the money come from?

Mr. Murphy: The last people from whom I want lectures on public spending are Conservative Members. Almost everyone has mentioned the fact that no one expected us to obtain objective 1 status, but we did obtain it. We did so because of the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. Now that we have objective 1 status, it is very important for us to be able to use it properly. We have the money to ensure that the scheme flows next year. In the comprehensive spending review, we have the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he will not let Wales down.

Welsh Assembly (Responsibilities)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What discussions he has had with other Ministers on the appropriate response to be made to representations from Members of the Welsh Assembly on matters for which the Assembly has no responsibility. [94080]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Under section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Assembly may consider and make representations on any matter affecting Wales. That

covers a very large number of matters for which the Assembly has no responsibility. Such representations will be fully considered.

Mr. Mackinlay: May we have an assurance that, in dealing with central Government, matters that are the competence of Members of the House of Commons—such as immigration and asylum—will be jealously guarded as matters exclusively for Members of the House of Commons, and not for Members of the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Murphy: Obviously, the House of Commons will guard its rights very jealously, and Madam Speaker will ensure that that is the case. However, I tell my hon. Friend that the whole purpose of devolution is to create a partnership between the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and the Assembly. By working together, we shall be able to ensure that the people of Wales will benefit from both.

New Deal

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about the efficacy of the new deal in Wales. [94081]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have held several discussions with a range of organisations involved in the Government's welfare to work agenda in Wales, and plan soon to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities.

Mr. Fabricant: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), will the Minister apologise to the various people with whom he has had meetings? Is it not the case that, of the 7,000 people who have gone on the new deal, less than 46 per cent. have consequently found jobs? Is that not both a Welsh national disgrace and a disgrace for the Department?

Mr. Hanson: I take it from that question that Conservative Members are opposed to the new deal. I also take it that they are opposed to the 4,500 employers who have signed up to the new deal, and to the 13,000 people who have benefited from it in Wales, including 9,400 under-25s. I take it that, the next time I go to Wales to meet those young people, the hon. Gentleman will accompany me and tell them that they will have no opportunities or jobs under the Conservative party.

Mr. John Smith: Since the new deal was introduced, unemployment in my constituency has fallen to its lowest level for 20 years. When my hon. Friend talks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, will he stress how important it is that objective 3 funding for skills and training should come to constituencies such as mine?

Mr. Hanson: Since the introduction of the new deal in Wales, there has been a 51 per cent. fall in unemployment for the under-24s. I take on board my hon. Friend's points and I shall make representations accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Dr. George Turner: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 October.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dr. Turner: When it comes to dealing with the beef row, will the Prime Minister heed the advice of the National Farmers Union, which is strongly opposed to a tit-for-tat ban on French meat? Will he take advice from the UK scientists who are responsible for public health issues? Will the Government act with reason and within the law and ignore the Conservatives, who would have us sacrifice the true interests of agriculture for narrow party advantage—the party that gave us BSE?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall certainly not engage in a tit-for-tat war. There is a £10 billion food and drink market for Britain in Europe, more than £1 billion of which is in France. The right approach is this:
We do not want a tit-for-tat war. We have right on our side; we have quality on our side; we have the law on our side. I think it is for the French to get their house in order and for us to promote what is best of our products.
Those are not my words, but the words of the director general of the National Farmers Union. That is a better approach than the immature nonsense from the Opposition, who are advocating a trade war without the faintest clue as to its consequences.

Mr. William Hague: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Ministers were aware on 10 June of the contamination of French animal feed and that the Government's food safety group concluded at the time
that the practice of using sewage sludge is both unacceptable from the consumer's point of view and illegal under European law"?
That was four months ago. Does he not regret that the Government did nothing about that at the time?

The Prime Minister: I am informed that it was in the newspapers at the time. The British Government made representations, as did the European Commission. The advice that we got from our scientists yesterday was:
There is no immediate health risk and therefore no basis for seeking a ban of French products at either a community level or unilaterally.
The ban on French products that the right hon. Gentleman is calling for would be illegal. He is calling for an illegal ban on French products. That would start precisely the type of trade war that any sensible person would want to avoid.

Mr. Hague: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has launched a personal boycott of all French

products and the Prime Minister lectures other people about a trade war. Does he support the Minister of Agriculture's boycott?

The Prime Minister: Of course we want people to eat good British beef, good British pork and good British lamb. That is a choice which British consumers are making. We do not want an illegal trade war. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Do not take my word for it; look at what the leader of the NFU in Scotland says:
I am not in favour of a tit-for-tat trade war. If this dispute escalates and other measures are taken it could spell absolute disaster for the sheep industry.
Those are sensible words. They are the words of people with the interests of British farming at heart—unlike the Opposition, who want to whip up their normal anti-Europeanism. They have locked themselves into a stupid policy that would do enormous damage to this country. This country will never forget who gave us BSE in the first place.

Mr. Hague: What all that waffle means is that the Prime Minister does not support the boycott by the Agriculture Minister, who presumably will be running for Mayor of London very soon. Does he recall on 16 June my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asking him about the cross-contamination of animal feed in France and urging him to ban the use of bonemeal throughout Europe and imports of meat and poultry produced by that method? Does he recall replying: 
Of course we are trying to do something about it"?—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 392.]
Was that not one of those meaningless and empty answers that the Prime Minister gives and then goes on to do nothing whatsoever about? What effective action did the Government take after he said that?

The Prime Minister: The very action that I described to the right hon. Gentleman earlier. The issue is how best to deal with the French action that is itself unlawful. What is the best way to deal with it? We say that the best way is to play it straight by the rules to make sure that we have the law, quality and science on our side. That is the sensible way to approach it. The right hon. Gentleman's approach, which I notice he has not repeated today, is a ban on all French products. It is now clear that such a ban would be unlawful. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's position or not?

Mr. Hague: For months it has been known to the Government that French animal feeds are contaminated with waste from septic tanks, water from washing lorries, and human sewage. How safe does that sound to the Prime Minister? Professor Pennington, who headed a Government inquiry on meat hygiene, says:
there is a potentially grave danger in eating animals that have been fed on treated sewage
and that he will not be eating French beef in future. Is that not common sense? Is it not time to introduce under article 36 a precautionary ban on French imports?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, under article 36 that can be done only in circumstances where there is a serious and demonstrable threat to human or animal health, and on the advice of the


relevant scientific committee which advises us that there is no such risk. So there is no doubt—the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape from it—that he is asking us to impose an illegal ban.
Let me point out that £320 million worth of British goods go into the European market every day—that is £100 billion worth of trade every year, £10 billion of which is in food and drink. That is why it would be stupid to impose an unlawful, unilateral trade ban. The sensible approach is not to revisit the old beef war which some of us remember under the Tories, but having got the beef ban lifted by playing by the rules, to carry on doing so.

Mr. Hague: No one would think that this was the Government whose Ministers have launched a boycott of all French products. No one would think that this was the Government whose chairman of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs says that one does not have to have a scientific interpretation to know that it is not good to put material contaminated by human sewage back into the food chain. That is what the Prime Minister's own advisory committee says.
We now have the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food boycotting French food and the Prime Minister not supporting him; we have the Government saying that they are doing all they can, but no one has even spoken to the French Minister on the telephone; we have the Prime Minister saying that meat fed on human sewage is safe, but that British T-bone steaks are lethal; we have British lorries being broken into and barricades on fire and no effective action being taken. Is it not clear when we look at Ministers that it is not just the dead cows that have had their spines taken out?

The Prime Minister: So that is the right hon. Gentleman's policy. Let us get it right: he would ban all French beef, poultry, pork and lamb. To start such a trade war is a foolish, irresponsible act. Perhaps he should learn the difference between an easy headline and a good policy. He wants to start a trade war. Having given us BSE and the beef war, the Conservatives now want a trade war. That is not a sensible policy. Listen to the words of the National Farmers Union today. Ben Gill said:
I actually feel let down by those politicians who seek to make … cheap political gain at my and my members' expenses.
[Interruption.] Just listen to this. Conservative Members do not want to hear it. Mr. Gill went on to say:
I want to resolve this issue in a positive way without a full blown trade war.
The right hon. Gentleman must decide whether he wants to carry on advocating a policy that would be suicidal for British commercial interests in Europe or to adopt a sensible policy that—[Interruption.] Conservative Members keep going on about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that British consumers buy British beef and pork and other British products. That is wholly different from the right hon. Gentleman's policy, which is to suggest that we ban French products coming into this country. That would not be the right policy. He and his party can whip up as much anti-European feeling as they like—and get support in parts of the media for it—but I will ensure that we do the right thing by this country, as we are doing.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what can only be

described as a bitter injustice? I refer to the situation of the widows and families of soldiers who serve in the Gurkha regiments and the fact that they receive much less in benefit than those of British soldiers in our Army. Does he agree that the Gurkhas are well respected throughout the United Kingdom and the world? They are currently serving as a peace force in Kosovo and East Timor.
A few months ago, we heard the report about two soldiers who were killed in Kosovo: one a Gurkha and one a British soldier. The Gurkha's widow will receive much less than the other widow. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that justice is done to Gurkhas' widows? My question is heightened by the fact that the British Inter-Parliamentary Union is welcoming a delegation from Nepal. The Speaker and representatives of both Houses in Nepal are visiting. It is their sons who are recruited to the Gurkhas.
Will my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence ensure that the injustice is corrected?

The Prime Minister: For nearly 200 years, Gurkhas have served Britain loyally in conflicts throughout the world. They are a unique fighting force with a real place in the hearts and affections of all people in this country. I am pleased to announce that the first stage in the examination of the arrangements for death in service and pensions has now been completed and that gratuities payable in respect of death attributable to service for Gurkhas will be brought into line with those for their British counterparts. These new payments will take effect from 26 May this year, and so will apply to the widow of Staff Sergeant Balaram Rai.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The entire House and the entire country agree that the French authorities are acting unlawfully on beef importation, but will the Prime Minister none the less acknowledge that if history teaches this country, and others, anything, it is that a trade war—a descent into protectionism—is counterproductive, self-defeating and, frankly, the height of political and parliamentary irresponsibility?

The Prime Minister: That is of course right, and it is the Conservative party's position. That party's position is driven because it has become a single-issue pressure group on Europe, and its anti-Europeanism governs the entirety of its policy. That policy is not in the interests of this country, and I shall not follow it.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that, given the extent of the crisis in British agriculture generally, it is unfortunate that, apart from one illegal suggestion, the leader of the Conservative party does not have one positive proposal to make? That is what the farming community wants—solutions and proposals.
Also, at a time when farm incomes are plummeting, farmers are receiving a pittance in terms of their prices, and yet the supermarkets are not reflecting that. Is it not high time that the Government got serious and urgent with the supermarkets, as well as with France?

The Prime Minister: We have been in discussion with the supermarkets, which are making their own


arrangements. What the farming industry needs at the moment is tiding over this period of extreme difficulty. That is why we have put together three special aid packages worth more than £700 million. Some £5 billion of support is going to farmers. However, we understand that their industry is in severe difficulty and crisis. That is why we are discussing with farmers union leaders and others exactly how we can ameliorate the situation.
To those Conservative Members who have been shouting out, I have to say there is no doubt as to why the farming industry is in this position—it is because of the BSE crisis, which was a result of the previous Government ignoring proper scientific evidence. We do not intend to do the same ourselves.

Shona McIsaac: What is the Government's view on the rather noble antics of Charles Francis Topham de Vere Beauclerk, the Earl of Burford, who seems to think that he has a divine right to rule simply because he is descended from Nell Gwynne? Does my right hon. Friend believe, like the Earl of Burford, that abolishing the voting rights of hereditary peers is an act of treason; or was it a great day for democracy and another manifesto pledge fulfilled?

The Prime Minister: There are two simple reasons for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. First, it is wrong in this day and age—whatever the Conservatives think—that, by birth, people can make laws. Secondly, it gave the Conservatives an in-built majority of three or four to one in perpetuity, no matter who won the general election. I hope that everyone saw those antics yesterday. They showed exactly why we were right to pursue this policy. We should never expect the Tories to be ready for the 21st century, but I thought at least that they might have left the 17th.

Q.4 [94106] Mr. Norman Baker: Is the Prime Minister aware of the disastrous recommendations of the regional planning guidance panel for 1 million more houses in the south-east? Does he accept that building on that scale would cause immense damage to the local environment, and major infrastructure problems? Will he now publicly disown those recommendations, undertake that they will not be implemented and make sure that he has a regional policy in place to stop overheating in the south-east?

The Prime Minister: There is a specified process and time for such reports to be considered, and we should go through that process in the normal way. This was not, of course, a Government report. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have increased the amount of building that has to be on brown-field sites from the poor figure under the previous Government to 60 per cent. now. We are trying to address the issues.
Obviously, there is a lot more to do, and we will do our best to reflect on the plan that has been put to us. We will publish our deliberations in due course. We are well aware that we must balance properly the need for people to live in decent housing with the needs of the environment—which is why, since we came to power, we have increased the amount of green-belt land.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: Will my right hon. Friend delay any

plans he has to visit my constituency until June next year, when he will be able to see the results of a £1 million lottery grant, every penny of which has been spent on the refurbishment of our magnificent Saltburn pier?

The Prime Minister: The refurbishment of Saltburn pier is a marvellous project and I wish it the best of luck. I also look forward to visiting it in due course with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I have already written to the Prime Minister about the matter that I wish to raise with him today.
Last Friday, the board of my NHS trust considered a report by its director of finance which forecast a £3 million deficit at the end of this year. The report proposed ways to balance the budget that would have severe a impact on patient care. Indeed, it became apparent that the measures would inflict severe pressure on the accident and emergency department this winter. Can the Prime Minister tell us what the Government's priority is? Is it to bring down financial deficits that are a result of the underfunding of the NHS, or is it to protect front-line services that my constituents require, such as A and E?

The Prime Minister: Deficits have been coming down. As the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of the point he wished to raise, I can tell him that there are no plans to close the accident and emergency department at either hospital within the Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust, and £3 million has already been invested in upgrading the accident and emergency department at St. Helier. Phase one will be open for Christmas, and funding of £1.4 million has now been agreed from the accident and emergency modernisation fund for new facilities at Epsom. I can also tell him that no medical or elderly beds will be closed during the winter period.
The deficits will come down over time and have already come down from the levels we inherited, but it is important at the same time to get more money into accident and emergency departments. The hon. Gentleman will find as a result that the acute beds situation at his hospital is better, not worse.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: May I thank the Prime Minister for the outline he has given of the Government's efforts on behalf of UK farmers, which will be very important for farmers in my constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire? Will he join me in congratulating the French rugby team who, at a recent world cup dinner, demanded British beef? It is nice to know that the French rugby team at least is prepared to play by the rules, even if its Government are not.

The Prime Minister: Those are good sentiments because our quarrel is not with the French people. We have a dispute with the French Government and we should resolve it in a sensible, mature and adult way. That is what we intend to do and, whatever the Conservatives think, that is in the interests of both countries. I repeat that with £10 billion worth of food and drink going from this country to Europe, an illegal trade war would not be sensible.

Mr. Bob Russell: When will the Government return to the people of St. Helena the British citizenship that was so wickedly taken from them in 1981 by the Thatcher Government?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue of British citizenship for citizens of overseas territories was addressed in our White Paper on overseas territories, published in March. We will bring forward measures to award British citizenship to holders of British dependent territories citizenship. The withdrawal of British citizenship from the people of St. Helena caused great unhappiness at the time, and when we make our proposals after the consultation period in the White Paper has ended I hope very much that he finds the results that he wishes to see. I know of his interest in this matter, with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I know also of the great concern in St. Helena.

Mr. Martin Caton: Although older women are more likely to suffer from breast cancer, many women over 65 are not aware of their right to screening under the NHS. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Age Concern and the UK National Breast Cancer Coalition on the work that they are doing to make women aware of their right to self-referral? Will he also say whether the Government are considering extending automatic invitations to women over 65 for screening in the future?

The Prime Minister: At the moment, we are conducting pilots covering people under 65. Based on the results of those schemes, we hope very much to extend the provision to those over 65. As a result of the new cancer proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, there is a new target to cut death rates from cancer by one fifth, which will mean 100,000 fewer deaths over 10 years. A total of £70 million extra is going into improving treatment for breast, lung and colorectal services, and about £93 million from the national lottery will be used to purchase more than 400 necessary items of modern equipment.
In addition, we will in time roll out across the country a complete overhaul of the delivery of cancer care so that there can be on-the-spot booking—at first for 14 million people, but we hope to extend that opportunity even further. The result will be that people will get fast diagnosis and treatment. If surgery is needed, that will be done quickly as well. That is an excellent example of the type of new service that we are trying to introduce in the health service today.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: May I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister a letter from the chief constable of Staffordshire police? In his final paragraph, he states:
I do think it is outrageous for Ministers to say in Parliament that police officer numbers are a matter for Chief Constables alone … I do object when they seek to shift the blame onto me.
The Staffordshire force has announced that the number of officers is to be reduced by 240. Will the Prime Minister intervene personally to prevent that decimation of the Staffordshire police force?

The Prime Minister: As a result of what has been announced in the comprehensive spending review, police numbers are going to rise. However, it is correct that there was a fall in the first two years, in Staffordshire and elsewhere, because the review was based on the Conservative spending plans that this Government inherited. Conservative Members may not like to remember the fact, but police numbers fell in the five years of the previous, Conservative Government.
However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not a matter for chief constables alone. It also depends on Government spending, which is why we are committed to spending more money. That spending is opposed by the Conservative party. In case anyone thinks that I am talking about a position that the Opposition adopted last year and have since changed, let me remind the House of what the shadow Chancellor said only last week. He said:
Gordon Brown must not start on another spending spree.
He also called the spending plans "reckless and irresponsible". The Conservatives are therefore not entitled to complain about schools, hospitals, police numbers or anything else because they are committed to cutting spending in all those areas. Having said that, however, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that as a result of the extra money being made available, in Staffordshire and elsewhere, we are able to recruit more police officers.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the negotiations in which he has been involved to secure a three-year moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified crops? I hope that the whole House realises that this is an important step in delivering Labour's conference commitment to set our people free from the foods that they do not wish to eat.
However, will my right hon. Friend pay attention to two specific points? First, will he ensure that the moratorium does not allow commercial approvals issued in the EU to bypass the UK moratorium and scrutiny process? Secondly, if he feels the need for extra legislative powers to hold producers liable for the genetic pollution that they create, will he feel free to draw on my Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability Bill for inclusion in the Queen's Speech?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations, which are all the more welcome for being somewhat unusual.
Before we came to office, there were no proper rules in relation to labelling and genetically modified foods. We have tightened the whole regulatory framework. On commercial approvals, European Union single market rules apply. We have made it clear in the agreements that we have entered into that we will not have products on the market until there has been proper testing and rigorous trials. Contrary to the Conservatives, our view is that as a country at the leading edge of the science of genetics and biotechnology, we should take a responsible and sensible position. We must not send an anti-science or anti-biotechnology signal and we must proceed on the basis of the science, albeit with great care and a tight regulatory system. We will not act in a foolish way.

Oral Answers to Questions — Building Regulation

Madam Speaker: Would hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly and quickly so that we can get on with the business? Please hurry along, as a Member is waiting to move his Bill.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the building industry; and to provide for adjudication in disputes involving domestic building contracts.
The Register of Members' Interests shows that I have a number of interests relating to the construction industry and that I undertake construction law at the Bar. The Bill, however, is not for the benefit of lawyers or the construction industry, as it would benefit consumers. The Bill is intended to tackle cowboy builders and to give statutory strength to measures to outlaw them.
The latest annual figures from the Office of Fair Trading, compiled from the case loads of trading standards officers, show that complaints relating to home repair and maintenance have become the fastest growing source of consumer complaint. All hon. Members could give instances from their surgeries or postbags of people who have been ripped off by cowboy builders. Sadly, those people are often among the most vulnerable in the community who can least afford to be cheated.
Some time ago, the Government established a working group to consider the problem of cowboy builders. The group recommended the establishment of a nationwide register of quality marked builders, backed by a mandatory warranty to cover all building work. The Government accepted the recommendation on the quality mark scheme for construction. But the major drawback to the initiative is that the scheme will be voluntary.
Voluntary schemes, not backed by the force of law, present several difficulties. Consumers will have to come to terms with yet another identification mark, of which a plethora already exist in the construction industry. It will take some time before a voluntary quality mark achieves the sort of recognition necessary among consumers to ensure that those who have become sufficiently competent to acquire it are seen as such by consumers.
When people take a package holiday or book airline tickets, they almost certainly do so through agents that have an air travel organisers' licence, which is a legal requirement. Every gas installer is obliged by law to be registered by CORGI—the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for maintaining a register of approved and qualified gas installers. What logic can underlie giving consumers legal protection against travel agents or statutory protection against a gas fitter but offering no protection when they get involved with builders or repairs on their homes?
In survey after survey, consumers have made it clear that they want a Government-sponsored approach to cowboy builders. The Bill seeks to build on the Government's existing proposals, combating cowboy builders through statutory regulation. It would use the Building Act 1984 to extend the building regulations and establish a new category of minor works. That would

provide a framework for the regulation of builders and would be linked to membership of a professional body or trade association and third party inspection.
The approach is amazingly simple and straightforward. Work currently controlled in the construction of new buildings would also be controlled when carried out for repair, maintenance or improvement to existing homes. There would be no need or requirement for work carried out by quality mark registered builders to be notified. There would likewise be no requirement for notification of work carried out by the owner of the house, so those involved in DIY would not be caught out. However, work carried out by anyone who did not have a quality mark would require notification under the building regulations, and would be subject to building control either by the local authority or by approved inspectors.
That approach gives clear statutory underpinning to any quality mark scheme and provides a clear incentive to those within the construction industry to achieve quality mark status. It also places the onus on local authorities to police the activities of unqualified builders more effectively. It sends the clearest possible signal to the consumer as to who are and who are not quality mark registered builders and will ensure that any building repairs undertaken by those who have not obtained quality mark status are checked by the local authority or another party.
The final report of the working group on combating cowboy builders recommended:
that DETR continue to consider how amendments to the building regulations including their extension to the repair and maintenance sector could be effected to reflect and complement the objectives of the quality mark.
It is understood that following the earlier consultation on a proposed new system of Competent Persons in 1997, DETR now expects to consult further on the proposals to develop classes of competent enterprises and individuals authorised to certify that work of defined types carried out by them comprise of relevant parts of the Building Regulations.
That is what the Bill seeks to do: it takes forward precisely that recommendation.
The Government published this month a consultation paper on the Building Act 1984, which acknowledges that central to the effort to tackle cowboy builders should be the development of a quality mark scheme identifying competent building firms. The DETR's new consultation document acknowledges that there are parallels with the competent enterprise proposals presented in relation to the building regulations and that, where possible, the construction quality mark and the building regulations should complement each other. That is exactly what my Bill seeks to do, and the DETR's latest consultation paper states:
by having such powers at its disposal, the department may be able to introduce new regulations in response to changing national requirements without these becoming an onerous burden either on business, the householder or third party building control.
In other words, the DETR readily acknowledges that it would be possible to give statutory underpinning to a quality mark scheme for construction to protect consumers without that statutory underpinning placing any particular burden on the construction business, the consumer or local authorities. Moreover, the consultation document that was published this month—after I had served notice of my intention to introduce this Bill—makes clear the exact statutory provisions under which


there could be legal underpinning of a quality mark scheme: the Department could use the powers given to it in paragraph 4(a) of schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984.
It may be that this Bill, which enjoys all-party support, is pushing at an open door. I note that the editor of Building magazine, when commenting on the Labour party conference, said that the Government are considering changes to the building regulations in order to give reputable builders an edge over the cowboys. The Minister for Housing and Planning disclosed last week that he is examining proposals to relax the regulations, to allow registered contractors to self-certify when they carry out home improvements. Those without a quality mark will need local authority approval—which is exactly what the Bill seeks to introduce. I hope that the Government will support the Bill and that, if their voluntary scheme does not succeed, they will take up this simple statutory proposal.
The second part of the Bill deals with adjudication. By seeking to extend the statutory right to adjudication as provided for by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the Bill will include the domestic sector. That would offer consumers a quicker and less expensive method of resolving disputes than having to go to the county court. If the Government's voluntary scheme for beating cowboy builders does not work, I hope that they will feel able to pick up this simple statutory measure—not least because it is on all fours with existing Government policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. John Butterfill, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Bill O'Brien and Mr. Bill Olner

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING REGULATION

Mr. Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the building industry; and to provide for adjudication in disputes involving domestic building contracts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 November, and to be printed [Bill 155].

Parliamentary Privilege

[Relevant document: The Report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Session 1998–99 (HC 214-I, II and III).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): We are taking this opportunity to debate the work of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. That Committee was established by both Houses, and the proposal to set it up was sufficiently uncontroversial that it was agreed to, without debate, in July 1997.
The purpose of the Committee was to identify—separately from the continuing work of the Select Committee on Modernisation, but, in the context of privilege—the rights and duties that we need as a modern Parliament. The Joint Committee reported on 30 March this year. Today, the Government thought it right that the House should have the opportunity to give its views on the report.
First, I thank the members of the Joint Committee for all their endeavours. The Chairman, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, is a distinguished Law Lord, who devoted considerable time and effort to producing a most thorough report. Most of the Lords who were members of the Committee are respected and experienced former Members of this House—although we do not recognise them so readily from their new titles. They included two former Law Officers, one from each side of the House: Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Mayhew of Twysden. There were two former Home Secretaries: Lord Merlyn Rees and Lord Waddington, one from each side of the House. Furthermore, Lord Wigoder played an important part; he is a lawyer of great distinction, and helped to chair the Committee.
Distinguished Members of the House of Commons served on the Committee: my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), and the hon. Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who apologises for being unable to attend the debate this afternoon, was a member of the Committee in her then capacity as Leader of the House.
That collection of experience and wisdom produced the most extensive survey of parliamentary privilege in more than 30 years. The Committee distilled evidence from lawyers and parliamentarians from throughout the Commonwealth. The report is thorough; it was pursued diligently and is well produced. Apart from our focus on the report, it is also receiving much attention in Commonwealth Parliaments—especially in those of the southern hemisphere.
One of the problems that the Committee was unable to resolve related to the term "privilege" itself. The word has connotations of benefit or advantage which are not related to public need or duty. In 1967, when that subject was previously examined, it was recommended that the term be changed to "rights and immunities"—a term which


is currently more familiar. However, although the recommendation was made in 1967, it was not pursued and the Joint Committee advises us—correctly—that to use a different term, rather than one that has been used for such a long time, would have little benefit and might cause more confusion. It would seem as though we were making a fundamental change, whereas in fact we are not. However, if anyone feels moved by the spirit of imagination to come up with a different phrase, they can use this opportunity to do so.
The Committee tried to examine what legal protection a modern Parliament really needs. The bottom line of the approach that is needed in these Houses of Parliament is freedom of speech. The great merit of the report is that it focuses attention on that key requirement, and clarifies what it ought to be, but gets rid of much unnecessary extra baggage.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend rightly points out that the Committee had to examine what a modern Parliament really needs. Was it, therefore, sensible that a Law Lord should have been the Chairman of such a Committee? I have nothing against the noble Lord; he is a most able and distinguished person, but was he a suitable choice?

Mrs. Beckett: I can say, with hand on heart, that I had no connection with that matter at the time. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has no intention of impugning the capacity and the work of Lord Nicholls. His question is a legitimate one, but not one which I am in a position to answer.

Mr. Alan Williams: I was a member of the Joint Committee. I fully understand the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), with whom I have served on the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I have to tell him that, during the 15 months of the Committee's deliberations, we could not have got through the legalistic maze that faced us, or dealt with the matter in an appropriate and logical fashion, had it not been for the work put in by Lord Nicholls. I have great admiration for him and think that he did a great job—indeed, the Committee would still be sitting and floundering had he not been there to guide us. He did not influence our decision, but helped us to see our way through.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and take his point that the combination of someone with legal expertise and experienced parliamentarians gave us the best of both worlds.

Mr. Eric Forth: Before the Leader of the House leaves it, may I pursue the point raised by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)? The report states:
Parliament needs the right to regulate its own affairs, free from intervention by the government or the courts.
The cause of concern is that an over-legalistic approach—one driven by legal niceties rather than a profound appreciation of the broader role of Parliament—might have given rise to some difficulties, and, to that extent, I can understand the point raised by the right hon.

Gentleman. Does the Leader of the House have any sympathy with the argument that that might have biased the approach expressed in the report?

Mrs. Beckett: It is not a question whether I have sympathy with that point, which is a perfectly legitimate theoretical point. However, I think that that argument would arise only if one were dissatisfied to a significant extent with the terms of the report. I am not dissatisfied with it; if the right hon. Gentleman is, I am sure it will emerge during our debate.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Alan Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will forgive me, I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West first.

Mr. Williams: Even had the Joint Committee not been set up when it was, it would soon have had to be set up because of the European convention on human rights. The so-called legal niceties have to be observed if we are to conform with that convention, so it was a dominant element in our discussion and Lord Nicholls' guidance helped us in that respect.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the Leader of the House to respond to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) before taking another intervention.

Mrs. Beckett: I apologise, Madam Speaker—I was trying to help the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point and I do not dissent from it.

Mr. Hawkins: Without wanting to overelaborate, does the Leader of the House agree that the balance in the Joint Committee's work mentioned by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West is between the sanctity of parliamentary privilege and Parliament's governance of its own affairs and the fact that parliamentary privilege is, of itself, a legal concept? It is because of the legal protection that all of us have as Members of Parliament that the experienced chairmanship of Lord Nicholls was needed.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. However, I should add that, although the understanding and expectations of parliamentary privilege of those outside this place tend, perfectly naturally, to focus on the freedom of speech that it affords to Members of Parliament, it also gives protection to witnesses who come to give evidence to Parliament—for example, to Select Committees—and enables them to give their evidence without fear or intimidation from those who might dislike what they have to say. The freedom of speech that lies at the heart of parliamentary privilege is not for Members of Parliament alone, but extends to those who inform our discussions.
The principle that underlies that is enshrined in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which states:
freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".
The Joint Committee has recommended that that article, which is a powerful protection, should be confined to activities that justify so high a degree of protection and that the boundaries within which it can be exercised should be made clear. That would involve new statutory definitions of "proceedings in Parliament" and "place out of Parliament". It also recommended that section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, which enables an individual Member of Parliament to waive privilege, should be repealed so that it can be replaced by a provision for the House to waive privilege in cases where there is no risk of legal liability for someone who makes a statement in Parliament.

Mr. Graham Brady: That point troubled me when I looked at the report. If the House chose to waive privilege in respect of something that a Member had said which, at that point, would not give rise to any legal liability, does it remain possible that the material to which the removed privilege applied could subsequently become subject to a court action?

Mrs. Beckett: That is certainly not impossible. The hon. Gentleman may later wish to discuss the issues raised with some of those, of whom sadly I was not one, who served on the Committee. I understand that the issues were exhaustively thrashed out and that the Committee tried to come to the right balance and achieve a proper degree of protection.

Sir Patrick Cormack: indicated assent.

Mrs. Beckett: I see that the hon. Gentleman, who was on the Committee, is nodding. The Committee wanted proper protection, but wanted it to be exercised by the House as a whole.
The second core principle underlying the principle of privilege has been the right of Parliament to control its own affairs. The Joint Committee has proposed—and I think that all hon. Members will agree—that the right of each House to administer its own affairs within its own precincts should be confined to activities that are directly and closely related to proceedings in Parliament. The corollary is that Parliament should not, as has been the case in the past, be a statute-free zone on matters such as health and safety. That will be recognised and welcomed by many hon. Members. The Committee also recommends that while the House should retain its jurisdiction over its own Members, its power to punish non-Members for contempt should be transferred to the courts.
Among the privileges that we have all, at least in theory, enjoyed for several years, although mostly without exercising them, are freedom from arrest in civil cases and protection from the service of civil writs by post. In the Lords, there has been similar provision under privilege of peerage. There has also been a lack of clarity about whether peers unfortunate enough to be detained under

mental health legislation are thereby disqualified from sitting and voting. The Joint Committee has done us all a useful service in identifying the fact that many of those provisions have fallen into desuetude, are no longer necessary and need not be preserved in our rules and proceedings.
I am on slightly delicate territory because I was not a member of the Committee and because it reported to Parliament, rather than to the Government. I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous of me to give an idea of the approach that the Government are minded to take to the report before I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate. Because it is addressed to Parliament rather than the Government, I propose not to go into detailed, line by line comment, but to summarise the Government's approach to the report with which, I am happy to say, we broadly agree.
The report's 39 recommendations cover a range of issues, including freedom of speech, bribery, control of Parliament's own affairs, disciplinary powers and the handling of parliamentary papers. The Government broadly concur with the vast majority of the recommendations.
There are just two small proposals by the proposals of the Joint Committee that might need a little closer examination and to which we hope that the House will give further thought. The Joint Committee's logic on both issues is clear; I do not quarrel with that. The issue is whether it is necessary in practice to go quite as far as it suggests.
The first proposal is that the power to imprison Members, which has been long unused, should be replaced by a power to fine. That is set out in paragraphs 276 to 279 of the report. The House is well aware that the suspension of a Member now carries an automatic loss of salary for the period concerned. That was not, I think, the case and was not so fresh in Members' minds when the Joint Committee undertook its consideration. Of course, the punishments of admonishment or, ultimately, even of expulsion remain. I admit that I am not certain that we also need, in those circumstances, a power to fine Members of Parliament for misconduct over and above the financial penalty that suspension carries.

Mr. Alan Williams: May I explain our thinking? It is not correct to suggest that the Joint Committee was not aware of that point, because we considered the existing position in detail. However, we felt that the suspension of a Member also punished his constituents, who would be deprived of his or her services in the House. On other occasions, suspension may not be relevant. We have a limited range of penalties available to us. As the current Chairman and other members—myself included—of the Joint Committee will, I hope, tell my right hon. Friend, we find it difficult to find appropriate gradations for the penalties. We are trying to be fairer, not more draconian.

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's point. I apologise, because I did not think that the Committee had considered the matter so recently that it would be, as I said, fresh in its members' minds. I understand that there are a variety of circumstances; no doubt other Members may touch on this issue during the debate.
I take my right hon. Friend's point that there is a distinction between the financial penalty to Members and their opportunity to serve their constituents. However, I find it a little hard to envisage the circumstances in which the House might wish to fine a Member without considering the option of suspension. I flag up that point, because the Committee has done a thorough job of clearing away powers that are thought to be no longer necessary. Although I accept that the Joint Committee considered this issue at some length, the question is whether the power is needed. That is a matter for the House to consider.
The second issue that I wish to flag up is the recommendation in paragraph 267, which suggests that the breach of an embargo on the publication of a Committee report should be treated as a contempt. Again, we have seen Standards and Privileges Committee reports directed precisely at such matters in the recent past, and I am sure that such an approach will have a strong deterrent effect. I am not entirely sure that much more can be achieved by seeking further to punish those who publish leaks. Indeed, I would be a little nervous of venturing into this territory, but, again, it is a matter that may be raised in the debate.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am sorry to intervene again, but I would like to clarify the matter. We spent 15 months considering the issues, so my memory may be at fault. However, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) may recollect what happened. I believe that this particular provision was imported from the Scotland Act 1998.

Mrs. Beckett: I freely confess to my right hon. Friend that not every word of the Scotland Act is etched on my memory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is a shameful thing to admit, but I thought that I had better do so.

Mr. John Bercow: It is not a sackable offence.

Mrs. Beckett: That is just as well. However, my right hon. Friend may be right. If he is, that will emerge in the course of this or other discussions.
One of the main reasons for setting up the Joint Committee was for Parliament to produce a response to proposals by the Home Office for a new law dealing with corruption. The issue there was how the rare cases—they are rare indeed—of bribery involving Members of Parliament or peers should be dealt with because of the unsatisfactory state of the current law. The Joint Committee recommended—the Government entirely agree—that Members of Parliament and peers should be treated in the same way as other citizens and should be subject to a new corruption statute. The Law Commission has produced a draft Bill on the matter and the Government will obviously look to introduce it when legislative time permits.
The Joint Committee acknowledged—it is right and important that it did—the difficulties that are faced by people involved in public life and the fact that they are more vulnerable to mistaken or malicious allegation. It was against the background of that recognition that

the Joint Committee nevertheless recommended that Members be brought within the scope of the statute law on bribery. That has to be the correct judgment.
I welcome, however, the further safeguard that the Joint Committee recommended that consent for prosecutions under the new legislation should require the consent of the Attorney-General. The Government accept that recommendation. Obviously, we all expect and hope that such cases will be few and far between. Indeed, let us hope that, in the years to come, that is another aspect of our safeguards and provisions which will wither away and will no longer be needed. When corruption legislation can be introduced, we anticipate that it will contain such a safeguard.
The report recommends that we have a parliamentary privileges Act. Some of the recommendations made could be implemented in other legislation or, indeed, not necessarily in primary legislation but by resolutions of the House or by administrative action. However, it seems to the Government that the bulk of the reforms proposed could not be put in place fully without a new Bill.
Equally, however, such a Bill has to compete with other priorities for legislative time, and I cannot at this stage promise the House early action. Obviously, the Government will consider how such legislation might be introduced. Perhaps this is just such an issue on which a draft Bill might well be prepared. It is exactly the sort of matter that might well benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny.
This is a further good example of recognising the importance to the smooth working of Parliament of ensuring that our fundamental rules on rights and duties, as well as other aspects of our work, are kept up to date to meet modern needs. The Joint Committee has given us a thorough and incisive report. This is the first opportunity for the House to express its views. Although I have given a preliminary indication of the Government's reaction to the report and what it proposes, I obviously undertake that we will take into account what is said in this debate before work continues to implement it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the President of the Council and Leader of the House for what she said and for the tone of her remarks. I also thank her for finding this opportunity to debate this important report before the end of the Session and for responding positively to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.
It would be very wrong not to pay a tribute at the outset to the right hon. Lady's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is now the Patronage Secretary. The Joint Committee was set up on her initiative. She was a most diligent attender at our meetings and she played a full part in our discussions not as Leader of the House, or subsequently as Patronage Secretary, but as a parliamentarian. Everyone who was present on the Committee appreciated that.
As the President of the Council and Leader of the House said, the Joint Committee first met on 20 November 1997. We had about 33 formal meetings and various informal meetings. We met for the last time on 23 February. To take up a point made in an intervention by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), all of us on the Joint Committee, without


exception, felt that we were fortunate to serve under the chairmanship of Lord Nicholls, who chaired our deliberations with good humour.
It would be dishonest to pretend that there was not, on occasion, a degree of creative tension between the parliamentarians and the Law Lords, but, nevertheless, it was a constructive tension and we came up with a report to which we were all glad to sign our names. It would be wrong not to thank Lord Nicholls, not only for the manner in which he chaired the Joint Committee, but for the enormous amount of time that he put into it, both at meetings and between meetings.
As the Leader of the House said, this is, first and last, a parliamentary matter. When the House finally comes to decide on the Committee's recommendations, it will do so on the basis of free votes. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would agree with that. It was therefore right that party politics should play no part in the Committee's deliberations, and they certainly did not. I should be surprised if they did in this debate.
Although I am speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, I was also a member of the Committee, I have a personal interest in the implementation of the report, and I hope that a report that was agreed to unanimously by a Committee of both Houses will commend itself to the majority of colleagues in this House.
The Leader of the House implied a positive response. It would have been rather embarrassing for the current Patronage Secretary had she said otherwise. I am delighted that the Leader of the House said what she said, and I welcome in particular her suggestion that we should have a draft Bill. If any subject lends itself to consideration in that way, it is this one. Her reservations seemed to be mainly on points of detail. I understand that, and I shall deal with some of them.
It is good to have a positive response from the Government, especially as so many of the changes require legislation. Other changes do not, and I shall touch on some of them.
The right hon. Lady said that the subject aroused interest far beyond this Parliament. Apart from our 14 sessions of oral evidence, when we had some Commonwealth witnesses, we received a great deal of written material, much of it from Commonwealth Parliaments, mainly in Australia. Their wealth of experience was valuable to us as we came to formulate our recommendations, because a number of those Parliaments have a system similar to our own. The Australian Federal Parliament has already enacted a modern Parliamentary Privileges Act, which we considered, and two Australian states—Western Australia and Queensland—still derive their privileges directly from the privileges of this Parliament.

Mr. Sheldon: With reference to Western Australia, I had the advantage of meeting not only the officers of the Western Australian Parliament, but some of the Members. There were grave misgivings about the work that has been done so far by Lord Nicholls's Committee.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, will acquaint us with some of those misgivings during the debate.

I shall listen, as I know the right hon. Lady and others will, with particular care to what he says. No one would pretend that the report is perfect; no report ever is. However, for reasons that I shall explain, I believe that it is a good and positive report. It makes proposals that the House would do well to consider carefully.
There has been great interest throughout the Commonwealth since the report was published. It is slightly disappointing that not much attention has been focused on it in the House or among those who comment on the affairs of this place and who study our proceedings.
The report deals with some of the fundamental constitutional issues that concern, or ought to concern, every hon. Member: the proper relationship between Parliament and the courts; the extent to which Members of Parliament need immunity from the law to fulfil their duties to their constituents; and the reconciling of the rights of the individual citizen with the collective interest of the nation in having a free and effective Parliament. Perhaps as we begin our debate on these issues, those who are truly interested in a vigorous and free Parliament and a free nation will comment on these matters.
At the beginning of the Committee's inquiry, there might have been some who were tempted to throw away a system so dependent on ancient statute and practice, and to start again. However, the moment one looks at the matter closely, the more clearly one realises that the core privileges of Parliament are as central to our constitution today as they ever were. An attempt to invent a new set of powers would create much constitutional and legal uncertainty. I agree with those who say that there is some dead wood to be got rid of, but the essentials of what we have are vital to democracy and to parliamentary sovereignty. As the report says:
Parliamentary privilege is founded on the principle that the proper conduct of Parliamentary business without fear or favour, let of hindrance, requires that Parliament shall be answerable for the conduct of its affairs to the public as a whole, and specifically in the case of the House of Commons, to the electorate. It must be free from, and protected from, outside intervention. Parliament is sovereign over its own business.
The Committee strongly endorses that view. Tradition is important. We should take what is tried and tested and build from there. That is what the Committee sought to do.
The Leader of the House quoted article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which encapsulates the privilege of freedom of speech—our fundamental freedom. Many Members have long supported a new statutory definition that would give both Parliament and the courts detailed guidance on what is included in the term "proceedings in Parliament". That was a recommendation of the 1967 House of Commons Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and several other Select Committees have since made similar recommendations, but the traditional parliamentary view has been that broader legislation would ossify privilege and involve the courts increasingly in dealing with privilege matters. I am bound to say that listening to the evidence caused us to modify that view.
The courts are constantly reinterpreting privilege in one context or another and the development of judicial review over the past decade has been rapid. Rightly or wrongly, Ministers no longer simply have to answer to this place for their decisions, but are subject to judicial review. Appreciable inroads have been made into the traditional interpretation of article 9, which tells the courts not to


impeach or question what is done in Parliament. Sometimes judicial interpretation of ancient statute might be a good thing. It is easy to contend, for instance, that the Lords decision in Pepper v. Hart, which permitted the courts to look at our debates when interpreting statute, furthers Parliament's intentions. It may be that, to give justice to the individual, the courts need to use parliamentary proceedings more, but, crucially, those developments should not undermine parliamentary sovereignty.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend perhaps reserve his judgment in the case of Pepper v. Hart, which leads a number of disputed issues into the long grass of legal research? As two litigants shape up to each other, each has to comb through every parliamentary stage of every relevant statute to see what Ministers said in aid of the interpretation of that statute. Is not Pepper v. Hart a burden on the public good will?

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is a valid point of view, but we have had the Pepper v. Hart decision in which Lord Browne-Wilkinson made the point that what they were seeking to do would not in any sense erode parliamentary privilege. Rather, they were trying to establish what Parliament intended and whether it had been carried out. I made my remarks in that context alone. Perhaps many people wish that Pepper v. Hart had never happened.

Mr. Taylor: I may be entirely on my own in the House in wishing that that result had not come about, but I happen to think that English statute should be interpreted at face value—on what the words mean rather than what Parliament intended. The pursuit of what Parliament intended could be endless—it is labyrinthine. Would it not be simpler for our citizens, particularly our litigating citizens, to look at the statute and say, "What do these words mean?" instead of, "What on earth was Parliament thinking of?"

Sir Patrick Cormack: As I said, my hon. Friend has a point. However, we cannot put the clock back: we have had Pepper v. Hart, and we are where we are. The Committee had to recognise that fact.

Mr. Bill Michie: I think that the judgment was right. In future, Ministers will have to do their homework correctly and ensure that what they are saying in the Chamber is what will appear in statute. Surely that is a good thing.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I think that we could all say amen to that.

Mr. Sheldon: Before the hon. Gentleman says amen to that, I should tell him that I was involved in the beginning of Pepper v. Hart, as one of my interventions, in a debate on a Finance Bill, led to the case. The then Opposition had perhaps the most talented Front-Bench line-up that we have ever known—most of them were subsequently appointed to Cabinet—and by whom I was being pursued for my interpretation. Being a reasonable person—happy to help in any way that I could—I gave them my interpretation. The matter was pursued again and again, and, finally, led to Pepper v. Hart.
As soon as I heard about the case, I scrambled to see what it was that I had said, and, luckily, found that it was justifiable. However, the consequence has been that Ministers should be very careful about what they say, and may not be quite so helpful in the future as a Minister was able to be in the past.

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is a very important point, which was recognised by all Committee members, and on which we had a long discussion.
Hon. Members must control the way in which we conduct our business. This House must be the place where the Government are called to account on behalf of those whom we represent. The courts must not take over Parliament's role. To ensure that that happens, we believe that a firmer and clearer boundary must be drawn. However, there is no guarantee that the courts would take any notice of the resolutions of the House. We do not lock up judges any more. I therefore welcome the Government's recognition that the Committee was right when we suggested that a new statute is needed to address the issue.
If the courts need to be restrained in any drift towards becoming legislators, we in Parliament must realise that modern standards of fairness, including the fundamental right to a fair trial, mean that the House is not entirely suited to a judicial role in dealing with serious contempts of Parliament.

Mr. Bercow: To what extent does my hon. Friend believe that the aspiration that he has just expressed, that judicial interference should be prevented or minimised, has been compromised by passage of the Human Rights Act 1998?

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend tempts me down a long and circuitous road. I am—as I said very clearly in Committee—one of those who are not at all happy about the Act's implications. Again, however, we have to face the realities as they are. Much as I personally regret it—I am speaking personally, and only personally—the Act is there, and we have to recognise that fact.

Mr. Forth: Until we can change it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, but that will not be for a year or two yet.
Much is often made of Parliament's ancient power to commit anyone to prison for a serious contempt. However, that has not happened since 1880. Does anyone seriously contemplate that the House, without due process of law, would do it now? [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may wish that we could. However, in the unlikely circumstances that it should ever be necessary, surely it would be better done through the judicial process.
Statute law may even have a part to play in making our own proceedings effective. One of the most important developments in the past 20 years has been the use of Select Committees to scrutinise Government and to examine issues of public interest. Yet the ancient power to send for persons, papers and records is uncertain in scope and effect. The new delegated legislatures in Scotland and Wales, which we have created, have been


given statutory powers by this House to require the production of persons and papers. Those powers are supported by procedures of enforcement by the courts. That seemed to the Joint Committee to be a suitable model for the United Kingdom Parliament to copy.
Transferring disciplinary powers over its own members to courts would undermine the House's authority and create the risk of undesirable conflict between Parliament and the courts. That is one area which must be for Parliament alone. I share some of the reservations of the Leader of the House about giving the House power to fine its Members. The subject occupied us for long debates in Committee. The Committee intended the provision as a substitute for the power to imprison, which some would be surprised to know that we can still claim to have. I very much doubt whether either power is really needed. I understand and, to an extent, share the right hon. Lady's reservations.

Mr. Bill Michie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sometimes when Members of Parliament have to be disciplined, it is better to hit their pocket than to give them a day off?

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is a valid point of view and we discussed it in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I subscribe to the report, but, as he knows, I had reservations on that issue, as did some others. When a Committee seeks to arrive at a generally accepted conclusion there are always some aspects of the report with which individuals agree more strongly than others. I was merely picking up the point made by the Leader of the House and saying that I understand her reservation and, to an extent, I share it.
I am surprised that the Bill to reform the law of corruption appears to have been put on the back burner. The Home Secretary strongly pressed the Committee to hurry its findings. Perhaps the Leader of the House or the Minister who winds up will tell us whether the final version of the Bill has been drafted. The Law Commission produced a draft Bill at the beginning of last year—indeed, we included it in the report. Where do we stand now? The report accepts that in cases of alleged bribery it is appropriate that Members should not have the benefit of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I am glad that the Leader of the House accepts the Committee's unanimous recommendation that in such cases the Attorney-General's consent must be given before a prosecution can be brought. The Committee, which included two former Attorneys-General and two former Home Secretaries, came to its view, conscious of the fact that Members of Parliament are vulnerable to malicious or misguided allegations.
A key recommendation of the report, to which the right hon. Lady referred, is the repeal of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 and its replacement with a broader power of waiver to be exercised by the Speaker, advised by a small Committee of senior Members. To recommend the repeal of a provision so recently enacted requires justification. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) expressed some concern about that. I shall try to explain why the Committee came to its view.
The intention of section 13 is to remedy an accepted unsatisfactory situation. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights prevents a court from examining those actions that form part of proceedings in Parliament—speeches, questions, motions and investigations of Select Committees. Before section 13 was enacted, article 9 prevented a Member from calling evidence about proceedings to demonstrate that an alleged libel had been committed and prevented a defendant from calling evidence about proceedings to prove that his allegations were true. Where a case was dependent on such evidence, either the parties did not proceed, or if they did, the judge stayed the proceedings of the court. That has always been so, but, in this litigious and media-dominated age, that has rightly been perceived to be intolerable.
Section 13 was intended to allow an hon. Member to waive part of the House's protection from the scrutiny of proceedings by the courts to allow proceedings relating to him to be examined in court in a libel action. However, section 13 was drafted and enacted quickly in the charged atmosphere of a particular case. The House will know the history and it is summarised in the report from paragraph 60 onwards.
I am tempted to quote the aphorism, "Hard cases make bad law", but I am not concerned with the Hamilton v. Al Fayed action. If I were, you would doubtless stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the case is set to begin on 15 November and our own current sub judice rule prevents us from discussing it today. I am concerned not with that case, but with section 13 itself.
The section has a number of defects. It does not extend just to present or past Members of either House. It could be used by a witness, a petitioner, an Officer of either House, the adviser to a Select Committee or perhaps a lobbyist—any of them could in certain circumstances waive his privilege in a libel action without the House having any opportunity to judge whether Parliament would be damaged by the case continuing. Section 13, therefore, undermines the very concept of parliamentary privilege, which belongs not to any one of us, but collectively to the House. Our privileges have grown up on the basis that they are collective; they are the privileges of Parliament and not the perquisite of individual Members. It is also anomalous, as the report points out in paragraph 61, that under section 13 a waiver applies simply to defamation and to nothing else.
The Committee sought an alternative that would maintain the merits of section 13, but present fewer legal difficulties and would ensure that the privilege that belongs to Parliament is controlled by Parliament. We therefore recommended that section 13 should be replaced by a power for each House to waive article 9 for the purpose of any court proceedings, and not simply for defamation, where the words spoken or acts done in proceedings in Parliament would not expose the speaker of the words or the doer of the act to legal liability. That was a key point.
In order to keep decisions outside the political arena, the Joint Committee recommended the appropriate machinery for determining whether a waiver should be given might in this House be the Speaker assisted by the advice of a small Committee. It suggested that the Committee might include the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the Attorney-General and one or more representatives of other parties with the


power to co-opt Members either generally or for a particular case. The presumption would be that a waiver would be granted unless there were overriding parliamentary reason for not so doing and some examples of where a waiver might be refused are set out in paragraph 80 of the report.
I emphasise that a waiver is not a total waiver of article 9 any more than section 13 is. There would be no question of legal liability for anyone for what he said or did in Parliament. The only exception where the operation of article 9 would be totally removed would be on a criminal charge of bribery under the proposed corruption Bill to which I referred a few moments ago.
The report contains many detailed recommendations. I shall deal with just two and then briefly summarise some of the rest. There is a good case to be made in principle for defining proceedings in Parliament in a statute to include Members' correspondence with Ministers and constituents. Previous Committees, including the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1967 and the Privileges Committee in 1977 recommended such a change.
The issue is difficult, and the reasons for the Joint Committee's rejection of the idea are set out in the report. We were impressed by evidence on the extent to which the development of qualified privilege in law protects hon. Members who are acting without malice pursuant to their parliamentary duty.
There are certainly strong arguments in favour of absolute protection. We should take careful note of the subject in this debate and those that may follow. I would be interested to hear whether colleagues think that we have got it right or that privilege should be extended.
I was concerned by the Committee's conclusions on subpoenas and I needed a great deal of persuasion before I accepted them. The recommendation is that the two Houses should no longer claim the absolute right to refuse to answer a subpoena, but that subpoenas should not be issued without a judge's consent. Again, the case is carefully set out in the report, but, again, I would be interested to hear what both Government and Opposition Members have to say about the proposal.

Mrs. Beckett: I did not flag up the matter in particular in my speech, but let me return the hon. Gentleman's earlier courtesy by saying that I have some sympathy with his observations. I well recall occasions in recent years when members of the previous Government were threatened with being called to give evidence in various cases. I do not recall the individual circumstances, but it was clearly a ploy. I recognise that the Committee has made the important safeguard that a judge would have to agree, but—I hope that I am not in breach of any of the obligations of the House in saying this—I am not as confident as I would like to be that every judge would see things in quite the way that we do here.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for reinforcing my reservations.
The Leader of the House referred to future legislation, but there are many recommendations that do not involve legislation. This is a matter for the House, as she rightly said, but I should be grateful if she or the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office would tell us whether the

Government are prepared to find time for those recommendations to be debated or are sympathetic to them.
Paragraph 14 is concerned with ensuring that
rules and conventions concerning standards of conduct are in readily accessible form capable of being understood
by the public.
Paragraph 15 is concerned with the implementation of a new sub judice rule as set out in paragraph 202. That is a very important matter. I do not in any way challenge the Chair, but, time and again over the past year, the Speaker has felt obliged to prevent our discussing a long-running case because of our current sub judice rule. I should be interested to hear the Government's reaction to the possibility of a change.
Paragraph 18 advocates the production of advisory guides for Members of both Houses on the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech. We have had some worrying examples of hon. Members perhaps too lightly using the freedom that the Chamber gives them to make all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations to which people can have no adequate and proper response. The report dismisses the idea of giving some sort of reply via Hansard. We did not think that that was practical or sensible, but we believe that the onus is therefore all the greater on the Member to realise just what a privilege freedom of speech is. We hope that that recommendation will find favour.
Paragraph 20 says that it should be made clear in every new statute that it applies to Parliament unless Parliament has been specifically excluded.
Paragraph 22 calls for the drawing up of a clear statement of parliamentary rights and powers, and urges that this, together with a statement of their own rights, should be given to all potential witnesses coming before parliamentary Committees. Paragraph 23 asks the Procedure Committee to examine and report on the desirability of maintaining the conventions that one House cannot compel the attendance of a Member of the other.
Paragraph 28 is concerned with the disciplinary powers of the House over its Members, and with the exercise of those powers by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is such a distinguished Chairman. His views on that matter will be particularly interesting.
We made a clear recommendation on leaks, to which the Leader of the House referred. Here is the one occasion when I cannot find myself able to applaud what she said, as I believe that our recommendation is particularly pertinent in light of recent events. Some of us will have found her reply not only disappointing but, frankly, inadequate. I hope that she will think again, and that the Minister will deal with the subject when he replies to the debate.
One final legislative point has urgency. One consequence of the two Houses taking charge of their own affairs was the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, establishing the Clerks of the two Houses as corporate officers to make contracts on behalf of the two Houses. Circumstances could well arise—and, in one recent case, very nearly did—where, because the relevant proceedings on contracts are sometimes considered in domestic Committees, which are Select Committees, article 9 of


the Bill of Rights prevents the court from considering the Committee's proceedings. This could seriously prejudice the case put by the House, and could be financially costly in some cases. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether the Government plan any action to remedy this situation by accepting our recommendations.
The report is the fullest examination of the issue of parliamentary privilege for many years. I believe that it makes sensible and, in some cases, far-reaching recommendations which will modernise and safeguard parliamentary privilege for the new century. I am sorry if I have gone on rather long, but this is an important matter which should concern every Member of Parliament. I hope that this will be the first of many debates as we proceed to discuss in detail the Committee's recommendations and, where appropriate, to legislate upon them.
I hope that all Members will agree that the report illustrates the value of Joint Committees of both Houses looking in detail and in depth over a long period at important subjects.

Mr. Alan Williams: I intend to be brief, as the key points have been touched on and I wish to amplify only one or two.
I have already paid my respects to the noble Lord Nicholls for his admirable work in chairing the Committee, and I associate myself with the thanks expressed by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to the Patronage Secretary, who was fully committed to the work of the Committee.
May I also—if it does not embarrass him—congratulate the hon. Member for South Staffordshire? We did not always agree, but we always argued constructively and amicably. Both of us recognised that the other was trying to argue in the best interests of this House, and that no party politics were involved.
Privilege was a mishmash and a mess. Much of it was out of date and irrelevant, and it was time to try to clear things up. That is why we needed the help of the noble Lord. Throughout our work, our overriding consideration was that freedom of speech in the House is inviolate and must be protected at all costs.
I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Having committed about 15 months to the work of the Committee, it is gratifying that, whatever the House may decide, the Government can go along with 37 of our 39 proposals. There is one "maybe" and another recommendation on which the Government will, I hope, check the Scotland Act 1998 before the Minister replies. They will then find what we said about Parliament's recent decision on the Scottish Parliament, and whether we said that we could not have less defence for our own privileges in this House.
I shall first consider the issue of penalties. In addressing our discussions in the Standards and Privileges Committee, I have tried to draw on my experience of the old-style Committee in the previous Parliament and of the new Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He can speak for the Committee better

than I can, but we have been constrained in imposing penalties after we have found that an offence has been committed.
If we suspend a Member for a week, that leads to a £900 fine. We might feel that a £900 fine is enough in itself. Why should not we be able to impose such a fine and allow a Member of Parliament to continue to go about his work in the House? For more serious offences, we could impose a suspension, which of course would incorporate the fine. We do not request more draconian powers, and the House could impose limits on the level of fines. All we suggest is a change that would make it easier for the Committee to reach conclusions when dealing with individual cases, which all have different niceties and qualifying factors. The present system does not allow us to take those into account, which is why I support the proposal for fines.

Mr. Brady: Did the Committee consider the fact that a sum may have different value to different Members of Parliament, but a suspension from the House is an equal punishment for all Members?

Mr. Williams: It is also a punishment for constituents. We still have to work on the standard of living value of the fine, although perhaps we are being over-generous to Opposition Members, most of whom would probably find the fines less onerous than most Labour Members. However, it would be dangerous to apply subjective evaluations in that case.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), a former Attorney-General, is in his place. He will remember, as do I, the cash for questions case in the previous Parliament. I still look back on that session of the Committee with no pride. Suspension can become a political punishment. Over the past 30 years, we have had Governments with small or non-existent majorities. In such cases, suspension may become a politicised punishment. Many of my hon. Friends who have served on the Committee may disagree with me, but I look back on the cash for questions case with a degree of shame—not because of the decision that we made, but because of the incredible and unjustifiable time that we kept the hon. Members involved hanging around while the two sides of the Committee sparred before reaching a decision. The fact that the decision was being made in the run-up to an election, and might have involved suspensions, coloured the thinking. I may be doing an injustice to hon. Members, but I think that we were unfair to two of our colleagues, even though our decision about the penalty was fair.
In the same way, I think that the House should be able to look after its own affairs. I hope that the distinction does not sound trivial, but we must distinguish between the club rules that, any organisation might have, and the criminal activity that, in other circumstances, could lead to imprisonment. Members of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege work according to the tribunal criteria, under which guilt is assessed according to the balance of evidence. We do not use the far tighter criminal requirement that guilt be established beyond all reasonable doubt.
I was involved in the Hamilton case, in which I consider that the Committee reached the correct conclusion. The Committee's ruling made it clear that the conclusion had been reached on the lesser criteria of the balance of the evidence received.
Although I pay tribute to the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I recognise the constraints within which she has to operate. Even with the commissioner, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege does not have the investigative capability to investigate more serious offences, such as corruption, which attract much more serious consequences.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will remember, the previous commissioner had advice from a solicitor. In evidence, that solicitor said that he was struck by the fact that the Committee's investigative capability was far below that of the police. For that reason, I had no trouble in concluding that the more serious matters, such as corruption, should go before the courts.
I do not regard membership of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege as a privilege. Judging colleagues is no fun. One makes friends among hon. Members of all parties, with whom one has to mix for several years. Given that one has to deal with people whom one has known for many years, there is a risk that one's judgment might be coloured. That is only human, although I think that the Committee is, in fact, incredibly objective. People would be made to stand down from a jury if they had the same relationship with a defendant as we have with the people who appear before us.
The Government asked for our opinion on corruption and bribery. I believe that we should make such serious offences matters for the courts. It would be a pity if that recommendation were to be sidelined, but we shall have to await confirmation of that.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, and I apologise to the Leader of the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) for not being present to hear much of their speeches.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has touched on the question of bribery and corruption. I quite agree that Members of Parliament of either House should be exposed to prosecution for such offences, if there is a proper case to answer. However, does he share my recognition that the question of what is said in either House—the question of freedom of speech—raises very difficult and important issues indeed? If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to be able to describe them in more detail later.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct and the House must consider those matters.
I recall that a former distinguished Member of this House—Lord Merlyn-Rees—asked throughout the Committee's 15 months of investigation: "Tell me, Mr. Chairman, as I look back over all my years in the House of Commons, why on earth would it have been

worth anyone's while to bribe me?" There is a myth about the power exercised by the ordinary Member of Parliament.

Mr. Bill Michie: We might describe that as a trades descriptions problem.

Mr. Williams: Indeed.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has accepted our recommendation that the House should no longer be exempt from health and safety requirements and other such matters. Exemption has presented problems for officials in the House taking legal action over contracts. It has also come close to costing Members dear. When the Public Accounts Committee was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, it examined fire risk in public buildings and the absence of fire licences in some Whitehall buildings, including, most interestingly, the part of the Home Office that then housed those responsible for licensing.
I discovered that the House had no licence, and I met the newly appointed fire officer, who told me the likely consequences. I shall not go into them in detail because they might make some Members uncomfortable about being in their offices. The officer told me that in one part of the building, if a fire blocked the single stairway, the escape route involved going out of a window on to a parapet, edging along it and climbing on to a neighbouring roof. Hon. Members may note around the building previously bricked-up doors that have since been opened to gain us a lower grade of fire licence.
The situation was absurd. People who worked here were not given the legal protection to which they were entitled. Nor was the House as safe a place as it should be in which to work or—as we virtually do—to live.

Sir Peter Emery: It is with great pleasure that I say that the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege has done a very thorough and complete job and we would all wish to thank hon. Members on both sides for their work.
I did not entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) when he said that he thought that privilege had been a mishmash. That was not so, and nor is it so now. In fact, the greatest of our privileges is freedom of speech, which has been guaranteed since 1689 when article 9 of the Bill of Rights made it absolutely clear, in words that bear repeating, that
freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".
That absolute privilege is of the greatest importance in a democracy. In many nations, autocratic and dictatorial regimes make it clear that any major criticism of them—in Parliament or not—will get people quickly into prison. Members of Parliament have the right of freedom of speech, which, incidentally and rather amusingly, was secured mainly through the work of our forebears and the pressure applied by peers in another place. However, we will not go into that in this debate.
I shall raise four specific points. When I was Chairman of the Procedure Committee—I held the post for 14 years—these matters arose more frequently than any other, so we must try to rectify any problems now or in


the draft Bill. I refer hon. Members to the sub judice rule, which will always be a point of contention. Page 52 of the report states clearly that the sub judice rule is reasonable and proper. The rule provides that
matters awaiting adjudication in a court of law should not be brought forward
when it would make it more difficult for justice to be served. However, paragraph 191 states:
On the other hand, Parliament has a constitutional right to discuss any matters it pleases.
The limitations imposed by the sub judice rule is, and can be, damaging. It is not unreasonable to refer in this context to the Pinochet case, which has been much on our minds of late. It is madness that, although all the media and every man, woman and child can debate that case time and again, the sub judice rule prevents Members of Parliament even from considering it. I do not believe that that is right in today's world.
It is immensely difficult—as I am sure the Leader of the House will acknowledge—to attempt to put into words exactly how the sub judice rule must work in every case. However, Madam Speaker has the power to make that decision and I suggest—if I may be so bold—that she should enforce the sub judice rule much more leniently than she has done recently.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 202—which I mentioned briefly in passing—in which he will see that the Committee has attempted to frame a resolution that addresses the points of concern that he and I share.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend should not think that I have not looked at paragraphs 202 and 200, which are the key to the recommendations. However, as it is so difficult to describe the rule, its interpretation will rest with Madam Speaker. I urge her to be—I will not say more modern as that is perhaps unkind—slightly more pliable in her application of that rule. Perhaps we might even go further. Although it might be right to make such a ruling initially, if a matter continues for a long time and there is wider discussion, Madam Speaker might feel it right to give way on that initial judgment.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties with the sub judice rule—especially in the Pinochet case—is that the House might want to explore matters related to the exercise of ministerial discretion rather than the actions of the court? However, by virtue of the blanket operation of the rule, we are prevented from exploring those matters.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, although I do not want to enter into debate on that subject as it might seem that I am criticising the Chair, which I would not do at any time.

Mr. Bill Michie: The Committee examined that matter time after time. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how we can stop abuse in this place if there is no sub judice rule, or if it is relaxed? That could be quite damaging. We are not editorials in a tabloid newspaper; we are the House

of Commons—the high court. We must have a discipline; we may not like the idea that we are restricted, but surely that is for the benefit of justice, rather than for instant television from the House when someone is being judged by their peers.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point. The only counter to it is that the media are limited in that they cannot make any comment that is prejudicial to a trial. Perhaps we should consider that point more than we have in the past, to examine how prejudicial any possible debate in the House could be. If a Member were to make a speech that appeared to the Chair to be prejudicial, we might have to give powers to the Chair such that the Member could be brought to order. Surely we must have some discipline in our House for our procedure in such matters.
In relation to bribery, it is extremely sensible that there should be a draft Bill—as the Leader of the House pointed out. I fully welcome the fact that we shall make it clear that the offences of procuring a corrupt act and of performing a corrupt act should be hit equally hard. In the most recent case of cash for questions, it seemed wrong that Members of the House were hit time and again, yet the corruptor—the person who gave the bribes—apparently got off scot free. There is something wrong in that sort of justice—it needs to be rectified.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I quite understand what my right hon. Friend is getting at, but does he agree that to suggest that our colleagues and our former colleagues, who were rightly disciplined by the House, were guilty of accepting bribes is perhaps to go beyond the conduct of which they were accused? Does he share my view that it is unlikely that any court would have convicted them of corruption? They were guilty of a breach of the required standards in this House. Is not that an important distinction?

Sir Peter Emery: I understand that. However, it seems to me that the suggestions in the recommendations go further than the implications made by my right hon. and learned Friend. I want to make certain that any condemnation should be equal on both sides. That has not been true so far. I feel strongly about that matter.
It is strange, but the interests of protection of privilege go to all aspects of proceedings in Parliament, and it is to the definition of those proceedings that I now turn. All the work of Select Committees is dealt with under the aspects of privilege pertaining to the House of Commons—with one exception: when a Committee presents its report to the country through a press conference held in a Committee Room, Members of Parliament attending the press conference are told that it is not considered a proceeding in Parliament and that there is no privilege. If an accusation is made there, it is no different from one made in the street.
It has been said that, unlike proceedings of Parliament, no record is made of such conferences, so one could not be certain of what was said. I understand that, but privilege is granted to private sittings of Select Committees, of which there is no record. Therefore,


I believe that occasions such as I have described, which occur about 30 or 40 times a year, should attract privilege as part of the proceedings in Parliament.

Mr. Sheldon: I see no problem. At a press conference, one is limited by the report and one can quote freely from it to explain one's arguments. If one wants to go beyond that, there are clear dangers, of which a wise Chairman or any Member of Parliament attending such a press conference will be aware.

Sir Peter Emery: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, I have attended many such events over the years and, time and again, heard the Clerk remind hon. Members attending the press conference that privilege does not apply to the meeting. It should be considered part of proceedings in Parliament when Committees present a report at such conferences; I see no reason why they should not be covered by privilege.
I was sorry to hear the Leader of the House speak about leaked documents. I consider the Committee's recommendations on leaked documents, set out on pages 71 and 72 of the report, to be extremely sensible. Paragraph 266 states:
The media are not, and should not be, exempt from punishment for contempt when publication substantially interferes with the work of a House or one of its committees.
That is preceded by the assertion that:
The primary responsibility, and therefore the more serious contempt, rests upon the person who leaked the document.
That is right, but members of the press appear to be able to get away with the publication of documents that they have acquired by one means or another—they take the "publish and be damned" approach. The report recommends that the House of Commons should pass
a resolution which applies to reports at any time prior to publication and to the unauthorised use of committee material, and that the House of Lords should pass a similar resolution
condemning such actions.
We should hold responsible not only the reporter who writes the article but the editor and the proprietor who are responsible for the management of the newspaper in which it is published. If we ensured that they were held responsible for such breaches of principle and returned to bringing them to the Bar of the House, the practice would stop overnight.
I have purposely brought Hansard of 24 January 1957, when the last person to be brought before the House was Mr. John Junor, the editor of the Sunday Express. He was lectured and had to apologise to the House. He said afterwards that it was the most worrying, unpleasant day that he ever had to suffer in his life. It is not fines, however large, that will bring about what we want but the fact—the disgrace, perhaps—of being summoned here to apologise.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Most journalists whom I know would welcome the prospect of coming before the House in that way. The right hon. Gentleman should reconsider his proposition.

Sir Peter Emery: That was not the case with Mr. John Junor. That is why I say that we should go for the proprietor, who would not wish it, as well the hon. Gentleman knows.
There are difficulties and complications in preserving the rights of Parliament. There is no doubt that we may often be open to much criticism in trying to preserve our privileges, but we have in Britain the fairest and, I think, the finest Parliament anywhere in the world. We are lucky to be part of it and, at all costs, it must be preserved.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) made a useful and instructive speech. I am not sure that his solution to the problem of leaks is right. The privileges part of the Standards and Privileges Committee dealt with one aspect of leaks from Select Committees. It was important because there was a leak direct from a Select Committee to the Department concerned. That is a very serious matter because the Department could have interfered with the Committee's draft report. I am not so worried about final reports being leaked before publication because they are settled and cannot be interfered with. It is serious leaks before reports are finalised that trouble me. Departments involving themselves in the preparation of reports is serious. It is not that which occurred in this case, but there was a possibility that it could happen in future. We have dealt firmly with that.
I shall make a few brief comments. The first concerns the point that the shadow Leader of the House rightly made about Parliament's sovereignty over its own business. He pointed to the creative tension between the lawyers and the parliamentarians on the Joint Committee. Creative tension can be of value, but why did we have to have a lawyer as Chairman? We had an ex-Home Secretary on the Committee, and I should have thought that the balance should have been on the parliamentary side. The Chairman is a very able man of great distinction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), for whom I have great respect, has great admiration for him and that is fully justified. I was prompted to intervene on this point by the views of the Officers and Members of the Western Australian Parliament. They felt that this approach was far too legalistic and that there was far too much involvement of lawyers. I share their view. The lawyers should, as they say, be on tap but not on top. They were certainly needed, but why was the process so legalistic? Why are there legalisms throughout so much of the report?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not think that the lawyers came out on top. They made a valuable contribution to our discussions. I must be honest. I have not said this before anywhere, in public or in private, but, at the beginning, I shared the right hon. Gentleman's prejudice against having a Law Lord in the Chair. However, I became convinced that it was the right decision, not only because of the Chairman's intrinsic quality but because of the qualities that he was able to bring to the chairmanship. Although we dealt with the matter in a wholly bipartisan, non-party political manner, he was so removed from the field that it was a positive help to us all in Committee. Although I understand why the right


hon. Gentleman takes the line that he does, I suspect that, had he been on the Committee, he would have been likewise persuaded.

Mr. Sheldon: I would have preferred the hon. Gentleman to be the Chairman. This is not a lawyers' do but a parliamentary one, and we should have had parliamentary people in charge. By all means, let us get as much expertise as we can, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, if we have ever again have to deal with such matters—in which case these debates may be examined—to ensure that parliamentary representation is predominant.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Chairman was not in charge and nor were the lawyers. The Committee was in charge and did the voting.

Mr. Sheldon: I am very much aware of that. I understand my right hon. Friend's point of view, but to have a Chairman from the legal side when it is a parliamentary matter is wrong. I felt that I should say so because my view is shared by those from whom I heard in Western Australia.
My next point concerns the interpretation of privilege by the courts. The courts have undoubtedly been encroaching on privilege for a long time. That is mentioned in paragraph 381. I want it stopped or, if anything, reversed. We have run our own affairs very well for hundreds of years. I see no particular advantage in the courts involving themselves more than is absolutely necessary. I understand that some of the report's points are valuable, but I shall not refer to them all.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that we cannot turn back the clock. Surely we could do precisely that if it were the will of the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we thought that on any of these matters the courts had got it wrong, had encroached on or diminished in any way what we thought correctly and appropriately a matter of privilege, it is the right and obligation of the House to take the appropriate legislative action to correct what the courts may have done in error?

Mr. Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman has always had much praise from me for being the one reactionary to whom I listen with respect, but I am not prepared to follow him in many of the matters that he raises. Clearly, we have gone too far. It is time to take account of that in any changes that we make.
I shall deal briefly with the internet. I put the matter to Lord Nicholls personally. The House must excuse me for pursuing my hobby horse, but it is one that many people will be able to ride. The reports and activities of Select Committees must find a suitable place on the internet. For example, this morning I searched the internet to find out what the Home Secretary had said to a Select Committee. His evidence was not there. That matter is enormously important to the House. One could normally look up such evidence on the internet in a matter of seconds instead of going to read it in the Library, which may not even have it. That evidence could have been a matter for discussion

or it could have come up in Prime Minister's Question Time, but it was not on the internet and Lord Nicholls's Committee did not want it there.
I have been able to persuade the House of Commons Commission of my case, at least in part. It has accepted that a Select Committee may put certain evidence on the internet, but only in the case of ministerial interviews. That would have applied to the Home Secretary's evidence. From the beginning of the next Session, we will be able, on the morning after a Committee sitting, to look up on the internet ministerial statements and answers if the Select Committee so decides.
I want that provision to be extended, but the Joint Committee did not want that. It said, comparing such evidence to Hansard:
Corrections to the 'Daily Part' are few … In one respect immediate publication of committee transcripts would conflict with the Joint Committee's report. Earlier in this report we stressed the importance of fairness to witnesses.
It is undoubtedly right that we must be fair to witnesses. However, there is nothing to stop any journalist writing down what is being said in the Committee and putting it in the following morning's paper. Despite that, we cannot get that evidence on the internet.
One of our advantages is that we can put the evidence on the internet, state clearly that it is only uncorrected evidence and that the final evidence will contain any correction. Making that evidence available would not, therefore, affect the final outcome of the investigation, and that would be clear. The sooner we realise that we are living at the end of the 20th century, the sooner we can make that information available at a level that is commensurate with the need for it.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is naughty of me to intervene when I have just spoken, but I want to reinforce his point. The proceedings of many of those Select Committees are taped and are therefore available for any television station in the country to broadcast within hours of their taking place, so why should they be prevented from being published on the internet? That seems nonsensical.

Mr. Sheldon: I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Nicholls Committee did not accept that proposal because it thought that it would be unfair to witnesses who might have second thoughts about what they had said. I find that unacceptable. On the internet, it would be made clear that the publication was a provisional account of the Select Committee's proceedings, which would be published fully as soon as corrections could be made. That would not affect the Committee's final decisions. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw further attention to the matter.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman has a good point. The Joint Committee was concerned that witnesses who are not Ministers and who are not experienced in appearing before Select Committees feel awe when they do so and are therefore vulnerable. That was why we came to the conclusion that we did. However,


it is important that the right hon. Gentleman has made his points, and he has certainly given us something to think about.

Mr. Sheldon: The point made by the right hon. Member for East Devon is still correct. Those proceedings can be on the radio and in the following morning's newspapers, but they cannot be suitably presented to Members of Parliament, and that is wrong. The concession on Ministers' evidence was made by the House of Commons Commission and I expect it to be extended in due course.

Mr. Bill Michie: We were concerned about the extent to which reports published in newspapers or on the internet are the authoritative voice of the House. My right hon. Friend is suggesting that we could try to deal with that by saying that the publication is only a report and may be changed, and that what is being published on the internet is not the official organ of the House.

Mr. Sheldon: It would be quite clear that the publication was provisional. Publication has been accepted not only for Ministers' statements but for close questioning of Ministers, during which important matters may arise. It would be nonsense if that provision were not extended in due course.
I turn now to Pepper v. Hart, which is very important. I have not been following that matter closely, but I will be surprised if Ministers are not much more guarded in their replies to questions, particularly in Standing Committees considering legislation, simply because of that case. That would be a great pity because we need greater understanding in Standing Committees of the complicated parts of legislation, and few pieces of legislation are more complicated than a Finance Bill.
Ministers have to sit with their towels round their heads in the early hours of the morning preparing for proceedings on their Bill, knowing full well that many questions may be asked and that they would never have dreamed of some of the questions. They must understand their legislation and advise the Committee to the best of their ability, which means going beyond the words in the Bill, as they must do if they are to be of any use to their Committee in explaining the Bill. I worry that Ministers may be far too cautious in answering crucial questions that could elucidate the legislation.

Mr. Grieve: The courts, in reading what Ministers have said so that they can make a judicial interpretation of a statute, are for the most part trying only to go through the same process of elucidation that the right hon. Gentleman advocates for Committees. Is it not better for a Minister who realises that there may be consequences from the judicial interpretation of his words to be cautious in Committee rather than to express himself in gobbledegook?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman has far too rosy a view of Ministers' understanding of all possible consequences of legislation. All Ministers can do is give an explanation, to the best of their ability, of what the legislation is intended to achieve. A good Minister can make that explanation come to life, so that people better understand the intentions and the likely outcome of the legislation. The Minister's words are no guarantee—

the guarantee is in the words of the legislation—but without an understanding of that legislation, the Committee will be much the poorer.

Mr. Forth: Perhaps I can put a slightly more positive gloss on what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Many of us feared that televising the House would alter Members' behaviour, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it did not. Very quickly, Members got used to the new ambience, and our behaviour reverted to its previous form. My experience is that, in the same way, Ministers who spend a lot of time in Standing Committees do not have Pepper v. Hart at the front of their minds. They behave naturally and are either effusively explanatory to the Committee or evasively secretive, and Pepper v. Hart does not inhibit their behaviour in long Committee proceedings.

Mr. Sheldon: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right. He should look at the Standing Committee that deals with the Finance Bill, where those matters come more to the fore. There are two different views of how our attitudes have changed since the coming of television, but I will not go into that.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way as he was the subject of Pepper v. Hart. It was his midnight words in June 1976, if I remember rightly, when he was answering 90 questions put to him by a Committee that contained 12 future Cabinet Ministers and two future Chancellors, that were given so much weight in that interesting case. Does he agree that the courts have fortunately learned to be pretty cautious about using Pepper v. Hart too much? If that is their approach, I believe that they are wise.

Mr. Sheldon: I fully agree. I intervened before the right hon. and learned Gentleman came into the Chamber to explain the background to that case. They were clearly the most talented Opposition to have dealt with any Finance Bill. I was pursued in question after question. I could have ignored those questions, but I tried to be helpful. I was asked, "If that happens, what then?", "If that happens, what now?" I answered to the best of my ability.
When I heard about Pepper v. Hart, I turned to what I had said and, to my pleasure, I found that it was not bad. I could substantiate what I had said, but it could have been otherwise. It might have been a matter on which I had not worked too hard. There are dangers and it is as well for the House to understand that.
Clearly, the report deals with other valuable matters, but I wished to speak briefly to deal with those points.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I start with a confession. When the appointment of the Joint Committee was first mooted, in my capacity as Chief Whip I had to select someone to serve on it. As a new Chief Whip, I did not have anyone on whom I wanted to impose a great penalty, so I had to put myself on the Committee—and it has been an interesting experience.
I take issue with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), as the experience was interesting not least because of the impeccable


chairmanship of the noble Lord Nicholls. I agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that the best sort of chairman is someone who can rise above the discussion around the table. Lord Nicholls did so with great distinction and effect.
The draftsmanship of the report, which is uniquely well formed and educational for those of us who are not familiar with many of the topics, is very much due to Lord Nicholls and to the two Clerks. I put it on record that serving on the Committee was an instructive exercise.
We were appointed in July 1998 and we reported in March 1999, yet I think that I am right in saying that not one member left the Committee in that time, which is a tribute to the extent of people's commitment to its work. The business was complicated, but we did not get bored by its subtleties and complexities; that, too, is a tribute to the Chairman.
There were times when Members of this House, who worried that the pace of our business seemed to get slower, felt that the presence of so many lawyers, who tend to weigh the minutes in terms of guineas, slowed up the proceedings somewhat. However, the product that we produced is one of which both Houses should be proud.
I put on record the thanks of all members of the Committee—and I hope all Members of this House—to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I was disappointed this afternoon not because the President of the Council and Leader of the House was to introduce the debate, but because I did not see her right hon. Friend here. I had thought that this might be a unique political and parliamentary occasion if, for the first time in living memory, the Government Chief Whip could be allowed to dispel the illusion that he or she is speechless. It would have been a useful opportunity to break with that convention.
The fact that we went back to the Bill of Rights of 1689 has been mentioned. We dealt with three centuries of piecemeal attempts to tackle this difficult subject. Dead wood has been referred to in the debate and it was our job to adopt some sophisticated and comprehensive tree surgery to a complex and difficult bit of growth.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West referred to a mishmash. Yes, there is a mishmash and I hope that, by bringing it all out into the open comprehensively, we have made it possible for Parliament to review the situation.
I do not accept the view of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that this is an opportunity to turn back the clock—far from it. Now is the opportunity to ensure that we drag this aspect of parliamentary procedures into the 21st century. If we do not do it now, those in the other place will perhaps have to do it for us—it looks as though they will be reformed before this House.
Privilege is a misnomer, as has been said. We are really talking about responsibility, immunity and freedom of speech, and what can be more central to the way in which Parliament serves the nation? Incidentally, when the Bill is introduced that will put these proposals into effect, I hope that we will call it not the parliamentary privilege

Bill but something better. Even if the long title is more explicit, such a name is a switch-off and it gives the wrong impression to the world.
The Committee's proceedings were dominated by careful assessment of balance. We had to consider independence from the Executive, which is why the Bill of Rights was written—to ensure that never again would Parliament be unduly susceptible to pressure from the Crown. I hope that lawyers will agree that now, as then, Parliament should not be subject to judiciary appointed by the Crown, which was an issue then.
If it were not for the fact that time is getting on, I might be diverted into an analysis of how the Bill of Rights came to be and how my ancestor, Bishop Jonathan Trelawny—one of seven bishops—was arraigned in Westminster Hall and eventually, due to the good sense of a British jury, was let off. The judges were, of course, appointed by the Crown and it was a direct result of that case and the threat of the Cornish to march on London that we got the Bill.
The other balance that is extremely important is that between the individuals in this place and the citizens we represent. Their interests and protection are part of the reason for our protection, because we are representing them. We are defending the privilege of citizens of the British Isles to know that their representative in this place can speak up on their behalf, not the privilege of individual Members of Parliament.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that it is when the going gets rough and one aspect of opinion that is very unpopular needs to be mentioned, that these so-called privileges and immunities that grant real freedom of speech are at their most important?

Mr. Tyler: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and now that he is on the Opposition rather than the Government Benches I am delighted to hear him say that. As a member of, hopefully, a not too permanent minority, I am more used to that experience perhaps than he. He is right to say that every Member of Parliament should be well aware that the minority view must be given its opportunity. We are representing not ourselves, but minorities in the country and that is a principle to which we must attach enormous importance.
The Committee tried to grapple with the difficult problem of natural justice and the normal rights of the individual, be it the individual Member of Parliament—he or she has rights, too—or the citizen. Members of this House and those in the other place, whatever they are going to call themselves—senators, peers of the realm, lords of Parliament, or whatever—have rights in terms of natural justice. It is extremely important that we have what the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) referred to, I think, as equity. We should not be treated differently and nor should citizens be treated less carefully when it comes to concerns about their rights.
That is why it is so important that we introduce as fast as possible comprehensive legislation on corruption. We cannot continue with a situation in which there appears to be one law for the legislators, and another law for the ordinary citizen. The sooner such legislation is enacted, the better.
As has been pointed out, there is a draft corruption Bill in our report, brought to us by the Home Secretary. If it is now kicked into touch or put on the back burner, the House has a right to know why that delay is taking place.
The Committee tried to recognise the facts of 21st century life. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the internet. As I recall the discussion, it was not so much about whether parliamentary proceedings should or should not be publicised in that way, as about what their status would be if they were. It was not the responsibility of a Joint Committee on privilege to decide what should or should not be published, but we were concerned to ensure the appropriate level of protection for that publication. For both the electronic media and the broadcast media, we wanted to ensure that there were practical answers to practical questions.
Outside the House, it may be thought that the Committee's work on corruption and the extent to which the House disciplines itself was a knee-jerk reaction to a set of particular cases. That was decidedly not so. A discussion lasting 15 or 16 months is hardly a knee-jerk reaction. In any event, we were not obsessed by particular cases.
However, it has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, who was much more involved than I, that there was widespread unease about the way in which a number of cases had to be dealt with. It was felt that the machinery in the House was fragile, inadequate and not up to the job. There was concern that had it not been for the fact that in at least one case, the person concerned admitted a number of charges and only one charge gave rise to dissension, we might have been in an extremely difficult situation in the House, or we might have been challenged outside.
As the report makes clear, the Committee was not happy with the way in which the previous arrangements had worked, and we wanted to create a more robust mechanism for the future. Were it not for the admission of various charges in those cases, we might have ended up with a parliamentary impasse, which would have been gravely damaging. Reference is made to section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. That reflects the recognition that there were fault lines in the system. We never anticipated such difficulties. In the report, we have managed to take a more sensible overview of the problems and the opportunities for improvement.
Reference has been made to the significance of Pepper v. Hart. Never having heard of Pepper v. Hart before joining the Committee, as I frankly confess, I found the discussion in the Committee and in the House this evening illuminating. It is important that we see that that judgment is being treated with wise caution by the courts, and rightly so.
As I understand it, the court may take account of what is said by a Minister in the circumstances described only if doubt exists. Where else is the court to turn? All too often in the past, because the court was prevented from taking note of what was said in the House in those circumstances, courts were left to make invidious decisions. It is surely better that if there is doubt, the court should be able to refer to the explanation of Ministers.
We heard exchanges earlier between former Ministers about the extent to which the arrival of the Pepper v. Hart judgment changed their attitude when answering

questions in Committee. On balance, I would prefer Ministers to be cautious, rather than generously expansive, and to say, "I do not know the answer to that."

Sir Nicholas Lyell: indicated assent.

Mr. Tyler: I see a distinguished former Minister nodding. I would prefer Ministers to say, "I will let the hon. Gentleman know at the next sitting", or to find some other way of providing information, rather than shooting from the hip and possibly getting into trouble with the courts. There is no harm in such caution.
I shall not refer in detail to all the other recommendations, which I support. The issue of the sub poena is realistically assessed in the report, and I hope that the courts will exercise their usual discretion in deciding whether an attempt to subpoena a Minister or a Member is vexatious or merely political. I hope that the courts will be sane and sensible in such circumstances.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Tyler: I hope that I am not about to be discouraged from that thought.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does the hon. Gentleman share my caution that Ministers who have been subpoenaed improperly, as has been mentioned in the debate, have frequently had to send lawyers, at considerable public expense, to prevent them being brought unjustifiably to court? Ought there to be some system whereby the House would assist or find some public means of assisting its Members who were unjustifiably subpoenaed, so that the courts could consider the arguments with proper representation?

Mr. Tyler: I was coming to that point, and I am extremely grateful for support from such a distinguished source. If a Minister is subpoenaed, the mechanisms are in place to deal with the matter, but an ordinary Member, or a Minister in the capacity of a constituency Member, could be put to considerable expense. I know that there have been such cases recently. I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter in his response, or that the Leader of the House will consider it urgently through the usual channels. The point could well be pursued, to the benefit of individual Members and of the House.
Regardless of whether we get a Bill soon and what it is called, a major exercise of education and information is necessary. One or two of the Committee's recommendations refer to that. For example, we state:
The rules and conventions concerning standards of conduct are in readily accessible form capable of being understood outside Parliament, as well as within".
That is relevant to witnesses who come before Select Committees, for example. It is of supreme importance that the law is seen to be observed, so people must understand how the issue is addressed in the two Houses.
Perhaps that exercise in education could extend to the media, which seem to find it increasingly difficult to understand our proceedings. I heard the exchange between the right hon. Member for East Devon and other hon. Members about the summons to the Bar of the House. I suspect that some reporters would think that a summons


to the Bar of the House meant that they would be offered a drink. It is important for us to explain what is meant by such expressions.
I have some experience of that. When I was a Member in 1974, I had occasion to make a complaint about privilege, and my union, the National Union of Journalists, was to be summoned to the Bar of the House and was looking forward to it. The union was only dissuaded from that, and persuaded to apologise to the Chair, when it was realised that matters might go further and involve other penalties that were much less fun.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In 1967 I was summoned to the Bar of the House. The reaction of Mr. Callaghan, for example, was that he did not take part in blood rituals. That encapsulated the problem.

Mr. Tyler: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but my point stands that the summons is not as effective as the penalties that we suggest in the report.
My main point is that we are discussing not the privileges of individual Members of the House of Commons or of the other place, but those of Parliament—an institution—and our responsibility to ensure that we are able freely to conduct our business, represent our constituents and look after the nation's interests. That is why "privilege" is such a misnomer.
Finally, I have some points to put to the Minister. We must know this evening what the Government's intentions are, in broad terms. The Queen's Speech may give us more detail about the corruption Bill, but the whole House will be extremely concerned if it is being put on the back burner. The sooner we are told about that, the better.
No concerns about the broad thrust of the whole range of recommendations have been expressed this evening or during Committee proceedings. Although the Leader of the House said that they were tentative, I hope that the Government will express their major misgivings should they have any.
I can say on behalf of my party—I think that this is true of all parties—that we regard this matter as a parliamentary concern, not a question of party politics. Therefore, I hope that there will be a free vote across the House on it. Such a Bill is an absolutely excellent candidate for the procedure that we have adopted, on the recommendation of the Modernisation Committee, for pre-legislative scrutiny. Precisely such a Bill could be introduced rapidly as a draft measure and given the consideration it surely deserves.

Mr. Bill Michie: Having been put on the Committee, I was a little apprehensive about exactly what form it would take, but I found our proceedings, which lasted 15 months and produced 39 recommendations, absolutely stimulating to say the least. I recall boring my family to death by discussing every Saturday night what had happened the previous Tuesday morning when we spent four hours discussing the first paragraph of a draft report. Our discussions went on and on, but they were important and not at all boring.
The attendance tonight is not too bad, although there are not too many Members in the Chamber. That is the bad news. The good news is that, knowing the pecking order in this place, I would still be waiting to speak if many more Members of greater seniority were present. That is another matter which the Standards and Privileges Committee ought to consider on occasion.
Our proceedings were not dry in any shape or form, although there was plenty of dry humour, and I take the point about the Chairman of the Committee, who was very helpful. I have nothing but profound respect and gratitude for the way in which he conducted proceedings and, along with the other Lords and Members, helped the Committee. The Clerks in particular did a tremendous job for us. That appreciation should go on record. I do not think that the lawyers were on top, but it took a little bit longer to get our own way, which is always the case when lawyers are involved in any sort of discipline. I found their expertise very much to our advantage. I learned a lot as a member of the Committee, and I am sure that a lot of lords, including Lord Nicholls, did so as well.
A review of this nature is painstaking and it is obviously important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I had some preconceived ideas about what I wanted to happen, but when I considered the way in which our procedures work and how they came about I learned day by day that the question of privilege is not a simple one to answer. There is no doubt that it is fascinating to discuss amending or codifying an unwritten constitution. The mind boggles because the constitution is not written down, but here we are discussing changing and modifying it. That was the job the Committee was given and I think that we did a good job, although that may sound like self-praise.
It is 30 years since the previous fundamental review of these matters and many circumstances have changed. I believe that the attitude of the people of this nation towards Parliament has changed. It was necessary to look at the way in which we run this place in any case, because the perception of it held by people outside is totally different from ours. In the light of events, we needed to consider changes and modification to achieve much more open and accountable Houses of Parliament while allowing Members to carry out their duties fully without fear or favour. That was one of the main planks of our discussions.
Chapter 1 of the review refers to
Parliamentary privilege: its nature and origins
and states:
Parliamentary privilege consists of the rights and immunities which the two Houses of Parliament and their members and officers possess to enable them to carry out their parliamentary functions effectively. Without this protection members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duties, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.
I fully believe that to be the case. Getting the right balance may have taken a long time, but we have arrived at it.
Members know from their own experience that people outside the House perceive us as members of a club, although we discipline some Members and interview them on certain occasions. From the outside, the House is seen as a club with privileges—an old boy network in which we all look after ourselves. The public were becoming


more and more critical and that was damaging the image of this place, so when we debate privileges we must make sure that we do not give the impression that we are self-serving. The media pick up on that impression—quite wrongly, on many occasions—and splash it about that we are looking after Members, but not looking after democracy and doing the job that we are supposed to do.
Nevertheless, we have to grasp the nettle. There is no doubt that we have to use our privileges—which are not personal privileges, but privileges of the House—to best effect to do our job properly on behalf of not only the country, but our constituents. The Joint Committee took all those points into account and we asked whether
the law and practice of parliamentary privilege meet present and future needs? Do the existing procedures satisfy contemporary standards of fairness and public accountability? A modern code for parliamentary privilege should be principled and coherent.
Those matters were obviously discussed at great length because the public's perception was not always fair to us or to our constituents. The right to free speech, as provided for in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, must not be misused or abused. We all understand that and have our own commitments and responsibilities.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has accepted the second option in the Home Office consultation paper, which is:
To subject members of Parliament to the same corruption statutes as other people.
However, if there is to be a draft privileges Bill, I hope that some of the points of concern that were raised in Committee will be considered, for example the problem of who consents to the prosecution. I note that she said that that matter is likely to rest with the Attorney-General. I bored the Committee to death discussing when he would make such a decision—late, early or what? If we are not careful—and if, having weighed up the evidence, he thought that a case should be considered by the courts for prosecution—that very decision could prejudice the case for the defendant. I do not know a way round that. I suppose that we must hope that he does not have any more influence with the jury than does the Crown Prosecution Service when it makes such a decision.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, I do not think that he need worry about that aspect of the matter. The Attorney-General gives consent in very many cases—even in very high-profile ones, such as war crimes cases—but no one realises it. The fact that the Attorney-General has given consent will not weigh with the jury when it comes to consider the case.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to make hon. Members subject to corruption and bribery charges, as they may already be held to be in common law, does not mean that what is said and done in the Chamber or in Committee necessarily has to be made admissible in evidence? Does he agree that the two issues are distinct? Whatever his view on the matter, does he recognise that there are very real dangers for the immunities of the House if we go down the second route?

Mr. Michie: Yes, I do accept that there are dangers in taking the second route—which is why, time and again, the dilemma posed by the second route raised its head in Committee. However, I think that the position of

hon. Members is slightly different, as it is a high-profile one, and one of our most senior peers has made a judgment that the courts should play a role in the matter. Nevertheless, I do not particularly disagree with the Committee's recommendation, and am happy that the Attorney-General will decide on prosecutions.
Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 has already been well rehearsed in the debate. I am happy that it will be replaced by a more general waiver, given by the Speaker, with the advice of a small Committee of senior Members. The Act was passed in a blaze of publicity, and for reasons that might have been good at the time, but the House and the Committee have made it quite clear that we have come to regret it.
I support the report's proposals, and hope that hon. Members will endorse them in today's debate. I also hope that we shall soon have a Bill that will not only clarify for hon. Members what they may and may not do—the Register of Members' Interests is certainly a step in the right direction—but give the public a better idea of how this place is run.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I should like to apologise now if I am not able to be in the Chamber to hear the closing speeches, but I have an unavoidable engagement.
I found reading the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege extremely interesting, and have no reason but to endorse heartily the vast bulk of the proposals. The clarification that seems to be inherent in the way in which the Committee has approached the matter is very desirable. It is undoubtedly a tribute to the Chairman, and perhaps to a little bit of legal incisiveness that has been introduced into quite a murky area, that, in many respects, what emerges seems to be so clear. However, with that in mind, I hope that I may be forgiven if I flag up one or two potential problems.
A moment ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) touched on the difficulties in making corruption, in terms of what might be said in Parliament, a criminal offence. To make the position clear, all hon. Members are subject to the bribery provisions at common law, and we shall continue to be so if a statute is introduced.
The key issue that the House will have to decide is the extent to which it is prepared to waive its current privilege in what may be said or done in the House, if it were to transpire that that might be material evidence in bringing a prosecution for bribery or corruption against a Member of Parliament. Although I am quite prepared and open to persuasion on the issue, I have anxieties about how that waiver would work in practice.
A central principle of our privilege in the House is that we are given liberty to express our views as we like. As we know from some previous debates, it is often suggested—albeit not in a way, I hope, that would offend against the Speaker's or a Deputy Speaker's ruling—that some policy decisions or Executive decisions may have ulterior motives, serving other than the public benefit. It is a problem which the Minister and his colleagues face daily. It is also a problem that, less usually, individuals may face.
Dealing with the problem is, of course, one of the reasons why the House has introduced the Register of Members' Interests. It is also one of the reasons why a very serious breach of the procedures of the House—effectively a contempt of the House—is committed if an hon. Member seeks to argue a case without making absolutely crystal clear what personal interest he or she might have in it. If someone were offering such an hon. Member a financial inducement, no more personal interest could possibly be found.
I am content with that system. If we start departing from it and saying that, when an allegation of corruption is made against a Member of Parliament, what he says in the House could be used upon a waiver of privilege, we shall be going down quite a dangerous road. I believe that it would lead to the risk that that device might be used against an hon. Member for improper purposes, and that it could give rise to a great deal of political discussion on the motives behind the bringing of the prosecution.
We have to face up to realities in all this. In the presence of the previous Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, let me say that I have never had the slightest doubt about the impartiality of his office. However, it remains the case that we have always accepted in the United Kingdom that the marriage of politics and the system of justice could not be neatly cut in two, as there will always be pressures with which to contend, even if an Attorney-General were not a Member of this place.
The further one goes down the road of trying to dissect the issue of parliamentary privilege and a Member of Parliament's role—to cut off various aspects of that role and to say, "In that respect, you shall no longer have that protection"—the more difficult the situation will become. The truth—as has been noted to be the case in not only the past, but the recent past—is that, if an hon. Member transgresses, he exposes himself to enormous opprobrium, and probably to the ruin of his career. That seems to be the suitable verdict upon someone who falls foul of the House's very clear rules on how we should conduct ourselves.
We shall raise very serious issues by carrying the matter further and saying that, in a trial for bribery or corruption, what is done in the House should be open to analysis in the courts. Although I should be happy to pursue the issue further if it is raised again, all I wish to do now is to flag up my anxieties about it.
I should like to deal with two other matters. There is a very important section in the report on the waiver of privilege. I had certain anxieties about the route that was taken in 1996, and believe that some of the problems—which are linked to what we have been talking about—stemmed from that hurried legislation. Therefore, on that basis, I should be very happy to consider alternatives.
When reading the report, however, I had some anxiety about the proposed alternative. As cases that may involve a waiver may well be the subject of considerable political polemic and contention, leaving to the House the power to decide whether a Member of Parliament may be able to avail himself of the right to waive privilege raises many anxieties about what might happen if a waiver were not granted.
Clearly, if the rules of the House were sufficiently tightly drawn in the way suggested in the report, so that the waiver would be granted except in cases in which the integrity and credibility of the House would be in some way in danger if it were, I see no great difficulty. However, my second anxiety is that unless that is the case there would be a real risk that a Member of Parliament seeking to bring a libel action might find himself unable to obtain the waiver because there was a majority in the House against it. That would be an undesirable politicisation of the issue. Unless the rules are clear, I would rather go back to the situation before 1996. It was unsatisfactory in some ways and did injustices to some, but at least it had the merit of clarity. Unless we are certain on the issue, we should not embark on change.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We cannot go back to the situation before 1996, but were we to do so it would mean going back to a situation before a newspaper made the claim that a Member of Parliament was barred. That was a novel idea brought forward by the newspaper.
With respect and delicacy, there is another revision of the law that might be useful. A year or two ago, the House authorities—which I do not define—made applications or representations in a court that Members of Parliament had not known about. That difficulty is well worth avoiding in future.

Mr. Grieve: I heartily agree with my hon. Friend's second point. That struck me as an extraordinary state of affairs. I also agree that the situation is evolving. There is no point in simply looking at historical precedent. We have to accept that the way in which the newspapers and the media operate and the problems that arise may change. I also accept that the situation in 1996 was novel. I am mindful of the problems and possible injustices that the 1996 legislation has caused. I am merely saying that if we are to take a further step on the issue, it had better be a step in the right direction and not one that we subsequently have cause to regret. The Committee's suggestions might work, but the rules will have to be tightly drawn so that only in exceptional circumstances would a waiver of privilege be denied to a Member of Parliament; otherwise we shall be in very difficult territory.
I concur with the view of the Committee on subpoenas. When I read the report, I was interested in the origins of the protection of a Member of Parliament from answering a subpoena. It is not to protect the Member from embarrassment, but to allow him to perform his services to the House. However, I suspect that if the provision has been used at all, it has tended to be used for the former rather than the latter reason. I do not know why Members of Parliament should have a greater protection than that afforded to the average citizen in this country from having to attend court on a subpoena.
Of course, subpoenas are grossly abused at times. As a barrister, I have seen it being done in court. That often puts a person to inconvenience. However, the court tends to take a dim view of litigants who subpoena witnesses unnecessarily. That undoubtedly provides considerable protection for anyone who receives a subpoena, including a Member of Parliament. If we add to that the requirement to explain and justify to a judge beforehand why the subpoena is required, there is ample protection.
If we want to go further, the solution might be to say that no Member of Parliament shall be subpoenaed or required to attend court during the sitting hours of the House. That would still allow plenty of time during the week for him to attend. In that way, nobody would be disadvantaged by being unable to attend in this Chamber, which is apparently the reason for the privilege.
I broadly welcome the report. It is useful when a Committee that puts itself so diligently to its task casts light on areas that are normally obscure. We are undoubtedly the beneficiaries, but it may well be worth reflecting a little before diving into legislation on all the recommendations.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), whose last remarks were very wise. I endorse the majority of the report and pay tribute to those who served long and hard on the Committee, but I have one grave reservation. It comes back to the fundamental facet—privilege is in some ways an outdated word—of our membership of this place: freedom of speech. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that freedom of speech is inviolable. Unfortunately, the report invites a dangerous attack on freedom of speech in relation to bribery and corruption.
I have no hesitation in saying that it is entirely right that Members of Parliament should be subject to the ordinary law of the land in relation to offences of bribery and corruption. If Members of Parliament allow themselves to be bribed, they should be able to be prosecuted. If they act corruptly, they should and can be prosecuted. However, that is not the issue. It is whether words spoken in the Chamber and in Committee and actions such as voting or the tabling of questions can be called in evidence, contrary to article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
Having been a Law Officer for a decade, I have given my fiat in a significant number of corruption cases. Corruption cases involving Members of Parliament are very rare and I doubt whether they would turn on what was said or done in Parliament. There is not likely to be any grave inhibition on the proper prosecution of Members of Parliament if, contrary to the recommendations in paragraph 168 of the report, the House determines—as it would be wise to do—that we should not waive our privileges in that regard.
We have the unfettered privilege of freedom of speech. In a sense, our privileges are those of the House, but more fundamentally than that they are the privileges of every citizen of this country. We have that privilege in order that the citizens of the United Kingdom—and, indeed, the world—may know that any Member of Parliament can speak his or her mind in the Chamber of the House of Commons or in Committee and can vote or ask a question without the slightest fear that what they say or do in the House may put them at risk of legal proceedings, either civil or criminal. It is not just a protection for Members of Parliament, but one of the fundamental safeguards of the liberties of every citizen. It is therefore unlikely that it will be waived, and, in so far as it is under attack in the report, albeit in the most courteous sense and with the most careful reasoning, it must be defended. Of course it

is under attack in relation to bribery and corruption, and I have already made it clear that I have no hesitation in saying that Members of Parliament should be capable, as they are today, of being prosecuted for bribery. It is a common law offence.
In the only case in recent years, where our former colleague was rightly acquitted, Mr. Justice Buckley none the less held at an early stage that the offence of bribery applied to Members of Parliament. I have never had the slightest doubt about that, but we are having to balance one public interest against another—the public interest in our absolute right of freedom of speech against the public interest in enabling a Member of Parliament to be prosecuted. It is very important to appreciate that clearly because a prosecution can certainly proceed without reference to what is said or done in the House if it is likely to be a remotely strong case.
Let us consider for a moment the kind of cases that lead to prosecution for bribery or corruption. They tend to happen because somebody who is in a position to grant an advantage to somebody else—such as the chairman or an influential member of a planning committee—takes money quite improperly and corruptly in order to give an opinion or persuade colleagues to a ruling. That is pretty much the essence of an offence of corruption.
I have great sympathy with what was said earlier in the debate about our former colleague, the noble Lord Merlyn-Rees, who asked what he had ever said in the House that was of advantage to anybody. I do not think that he quite said that, but the humorous way in which I put it encapsulates the essence of what he had in mind. If people had to rely on what had been said in the House, I could see it being laughed about a good deal in court, in the way in which things get laughed out of court.
Paragraph 168 of the report argues that there will be very few prosecutions for corruption. It is also argued that it will be very rare that what is said or done in Parliament will have any relevance and that, therefore, the proposal is a minimal encroachment on our liberties. I beg strongly to disagree. The danger is that it is not the cases that do happen which encroach on our liberties; it is the cases that might happen. During my years as a Law Officer I saw a good deal of that.
Before turning to personal insights, we know perfectly well that the very business of politics is a matter of people seeking advantage, usually for totally proper reasons, of Government or of a Member of Parliament to try to persuade Government, and thus seeking and conferring advantage. That seeking and conferring of advantage is of the very essence of the proposed Bill. In preparing my thoughts, I wrote down some quotations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Drawing the House's attention to paragraph 168 was really useful. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to concentrate on the minor encroachment that it covers. Does he agree that if the Government intend to act on it, they should remember that Members of Parliament accused of taking some consideration for something they do in the House have broken the advocacy rule and probably others, so it will not be a question of letting them off? They can be exposed to a full investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and, as right hon. and hon. Members, we can certainly look at what goes on in the House.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In a moment I shall make the same point in my own way.
I was searching for the very definition of corruption that is set out in the draft Bill prepared by the Law Commission which is to be found at annexe D on page 103 of the report. One has only to read that definition to see how many ingredients of the offence, without being in the least corrupt in themselves, are an essential part of political life every day. They include conferring advantages, soliciting advantages and doing something that one has a right to do in consequence of another's request, primarily in return for the conferring of an advantage. I am reminded again of the old joke where one person says that there is no such thing as gratitude in politics and somebody else replies, "Yes there is. Gratitude in politics is the confident expectation of favours in the future". Of course, that is the whole business of soliciting and conferring an advantage. It is a vital but, in some senses, a very quick jump between the perfectly honest and indeed noble activities in which we seek to engage ourselves in public life and the allegedly dishonest and corrupt abuse of those activities. Consequently, we are extremely vulnerable. Indeed, there will not be one of us who has not been accused of acting corruptly during his period here.
I was about to draw on my experience as a Law Officer. The Law Officer's Department receives reams of letters almost daily containing widespread allegations of corruption, usually of a totally footling and foolish sort, which are sincerely made by citizens who are disgruntled in one sense or another. There are reams of letters and every one of us will have received copies of them. I do not wish to trivialise this, but the ones to which one pays least attention start by being addressed to the Queen, then the Archbishop of Canterbury, then the Prime Minister and copied to ourselves as Members of Parliament.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Underlined in green ink.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: As my hon. Friend rightly says, they are underlined in green and red ink. However, a number of those letters, although they are deeply saddening, are from people who have suffered the misfortunes of life which they believe are the result of corruption.
In the tough interplay of politics, people say and begin to believe that things which are done at least not corruptly are corrupt. I shall not mention them because I do not wish to give the slightest indication of corruption, but if right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber think back over a certain number of matters in the past two years where substantial sums of money have been paid by one person to another for one reason or another, it is not too difficult to suggest, quite wrongly, that there was an element of corruption in them. Where is this leading to in my speech? We should be confident that such accusations of corruption, which are frequently made, can never in themselves lead us into courts—either civil or criminal—in respect of anything which we say or do in this Chamber. If we do anything corrupt outside the Chamber, we can be brought to justice.
Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has had to leave the Chamber just as I have got to his point. New rules of the House have

properly been put in place in the past four or five years. If we transgress them, perhaps by failing to declare a consultancy—I have never held a consultancy, although I do not regard the practice as dishonourable, provided that it is properly declared—a financial interest or a foreign trip, we are likely to be either lightly reprimanded or severely censured and put on the rack through the procedures of the House. That is an advance under the modernisation of our procedures that I totally applaud.
We come back to the fundamentals. We should be liable to prosecution for bribery or corruption if there is a case to answer, and I agree that we need the filter of the Attorney-General. I entirely agree with my successor, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who said to the Committee that the decision could be very difficult, especially if it relates to someone of one's own party, because there is always the great danger of leaning over backwards, and the proper stance is not to lean either forwards or backwards but to remain completely upright, but it is certainly necessary to require the Attorney-General's consent before a proceeding for corruption can be brought against a Member of Parliament.
It has always been the law that any proceeding for corruption must have the Attorney-General's fiat. That should continue. There is no need to draw a distinction between Members of Parliament and other citizens in that respect, but we are not as other citizens in the privileges that we enjoy and the duty that we have to speak up on difficult and controversial issues.
It is when the going gets rough and there is a witch hunt, and ideas of treachery, corruption or collusion are most rife, that the need to speak up bravely, and the dangers of doing so, are most pertinent. It is our duty to protect the integrity of the House against any diminution of our freedoms. Consequently, although I commend so much of the report, I ask that we think very carefully again on that aspect.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I want to raise some matters of privilege that perhaps the Committee has not dealt with fully. I have been in and out of the Chamber today, as I have had other duties, including attending a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. I have not read the full report, but I have read the summaries and had conversations with colleagues over the past few months. I was surprised by the radical nature of some of the conclusions.
We should consider the process of dealing with privilege for an individual Member of Parliament and the way in which the Standards and Privileges Committee investigates issues of privilege and contempt. The present system is not working as it should. In 1981, I brought a complaint against the chairman of British Steel as I believed that there had been a breach of privilege. The Speaker, if he or she is so disposed, gives the individual Member the right to table a motion that is given precedence on the Floor of the House—it is taken straight after questions—to seek the approval of the House to refer the matter to the Committee.
That procedure is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong for the Speaker to have to decide whether the issue warrants being given that priority over the rest of the day's business. The Speaker is placed in a very difficult


position. The decision cannot readily be deferred because it has to be taken on receipt of the complaint, which has to be made as soon as it is possible to report the breach to the Speaker. The Joint Committee might have considered a different procedure whereby the matter could be referred, if not directly by the Member to the Committee, at least by a truncated process. The Speaker, sitting in his or her quarters, might take the decision on behalf of the House.
The Social Security Committee—or was it the Liaison Committee?—referred a complaint to the Standards and Privileges Committee about the leaking of documents, so a Committee can refer a complaint and thereby route round the Speaker. I want an individual Member to have a fast route for application to have a complaint considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Mr. Sheldon: To clarify the point, the complaint came from the Social Security Committee to the Liaison Committee and eventually came before the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am also concerned about what happens when the complaint gets to the Standards and Privileges Committee. I have served on the Members' Interests Committee and its successor post-Nolan from 1983, although I missed a couple of years. The mechanisms whereby we deal with privilege are wrong. The commissioner for standards and privileges—not the Commissioner for Standards—should be given the power to carry out the investigation in precisely the same way as she currently carries out investigations on matters of standards.
I argue that for precisely the same reason for which I argued for the new structure long before it was introduced: I believe that there is a danger that the Committee can be politicised during the process of considering a complaint against a Member in the period before a general election. My experience is that that is precisely what has happened. To be honest, that is always likely to happen. There will always be members of the Standards and Privileges Committee who have an element of political consideration in mind when considering such matters.
Under the standards procedure, that is no longer possible, because the commissioner—acting independently, and as an Officer of this House—assumes responsibility for the investigation. The investigation should be carried out by the commissioner under another procedure, who would report to the Standards and Privileges Committee in exactly the same way as she does now on standards. The result would be a more neutral consideration of the important issues.
I do not wish to refer to individual complaints, but I can think of one where I am convinced that consideration of the matter under the heading of privilege was being distorted before the general election.
I wish to refer to privilege as it relates to the protection of Members of Parliament in the carrying out of their public duties. "Erskine May" refers to harassment and molestation of a Member of the House of Commons, and defines the circumstances in which a Member might feel in a position to bring a complaint. I wish to give an example of Members not being given sufficient protection.
Last year, I was harassed at home by a Manchester business man. He rang me repeatedly and harassed me and my family. I reported the matter to Cumbria police, and the man got the message and stopped before the police had to intervene. Had I been prepared to identify the person, and had I referred the matter to Madam Speaker, she would—if I had provided evidence—probably have given it precedence. The matter would have stood referred to the Committee, which would have had to reach a judgment.
If my understanding of the system is correct, the person involved would have been brought before the House of Commons. However, the system does not necessarily deal with someone who is harassing a Member of Parliament. The person can be brought before the Privileges Committee of the House in so far as he is interfering with my rights as an individual Member of Parliament and preventing me from carrying out my public duties without fear of intimidation. In reality, we have no right to impose any penalty.
Equally, we could say that the matter could be referred to the police. However, because of all kinds of issues—I keep hearing one in particular: that it is "not in the public interest"—I am not convinced that there would be a prosecution. Parliament should be able to say to the authorities and the police that we require that the person involved in the intimidation be arraigned before the courts and prosecuted. That is what Members need to protect them from harassment by someone outside.
The harassment of me last year arose when I was investigating the background of the prosecution of Mr. Owen Oyston for rape. I had interviewed some 60 people in Lancashire over a couple of recesses and during the parliamentary term. I was carrying out the interviews with another person, a journalist named Andrew Rosthorne. He, it could be argued, has been acting as my agent. On 11 October, Mr. Rosthorne received 89 phone calls on his mobile phone from the same person who was harassing me. The calls were traced through Cellnet.
Mr. Rosthorne is writing a book about the matter, and we converse all the time about the case, and about another case that is coming before Preston Crown court concerning a Preston councillor, in which we feel equally under pressure from people who do not want us to get close to the truth. In so far as he is acting partly as my agent, Mr. Rosthorne needs some protection, but he has no protection whatever.
Mr. Rosthorne received 89 calls on one day and was harassed over three weeks. He was harassed last week on the telephone, and he can do very little about it. He has been to Blackburn police station to report the incidents, and he has referred the matter to Cellnet. However, he is being intimidated and harassed, and I am directly connected with him. For all I know, two or three of the strange phone calls that we received last week—one of which we managed to tape—were attempts to harass me as well. However, I have been unable to trace the calls.
This person is harassing a Member of Parliament and people outside involved in gathering information for that Member of Parliament. We are being impeded in our public duties. No process provides me with any sense of protection, and I believe that these matters should be considered not by the Joint Committee but by the powers-that-be when they consider legislation. Such


legislation could go further than bribery and corruption. It might have to go into other areas where Members feel that they need protection.
I am worried about the legal position of the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member. As far as I am concerned, we are not a Committee of Parliament—to which I take strong exception. I believe strongly that our Committee should be a Committee of Parliament, enjoying all the privileges of Parliament, but it does not have those privileges. That will have to be discussed. The Committee might have looked at it—perhaps it is my fault for not drawing it to its attention. Perhaps the Government will consider what I am saying this evening.
Under present arrangements, the Standards and Privileges Committee cannot compel Members from the other place to appear before a Committee of the Commons. We can ask them, and they can agree to do it.

Mr. Alan Williams: That matter is referred to specifically in the report, which recommends that the Committee should be free to call such Members.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Absolutely—I read that recommendation. However, the recommendation is that we would have the right to bring before any Committee of the Commons a Member of the other place. That is my interpretation of the recommendation.
I wish to refer to an inquiry by the Standards and Privileges Committee into the case of a complaint against Lord Steel, who is now the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. The complaint was that, in 1997, he failed to supply an employment agreement in relation to £93,700 that he had received from the Countryside Movement. The complaint was upheld by the Committee. In other words, he was found to be in error.
The Committee's investigation took place after the general election. Lord Steel failed to make the declaration and submit the agreement before the election. If he had done so, it would have been an issue in the election, as a Liberal Democrat would have been identified with that contribution when we debated hunting. We could have asked him to appear before us, but we did not. Why not? The answer is simple: we could do nothing about it. Lord Steel had gone. He had flown off to the other place. We could not punish him by suspending him. In fact, we could do nothing to him. That is why the Committee could have gone a little further in its recommendations. We should have the right to require members of the other place to attend, but we should also have the right to impose a penalty on them for transgressions while they were Members of this House.
The Committee report on the Steel case states:
We agree with the Commissioner on the failure to deposit an employment agreement.
Had Lord Steel still been a Member of the House of Commons, we would have called on him to deposit a record of the relevant information, even though the period of employment had ceased. However, he managed to avoid justice in the House of Commons because he had left to go to the House of Lords. Perhaps the Committee should have considered that issue, and perhaps I was

remiss in failing to draw it to its attention, but I am sure that the Government will wish to consider the matter when they conduct their general review of arrangements.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I do not often agree with him, but—as many people have said before me—I defend for ever his right to say it. That is what we are talking about this evening and I am sorry that so few hon. Members are present when we are considering an important and fundamental issue of democracy. Perhaps their absence is a measure of the trust that they have in those of us who are present to defend their rights.
I will immediately contradict myself, because we are talking about not the rights of Members of Parliament as individuals, but their rights as representatives of the electorate. In that respect, I am pleased to agree with the Leader of the House today when she said that the two key issues are freedom of speech and the right of Parliament to conduct its own affairs. We can all agree with that.
It has been an education to hear the wealth of wisdom and experience from right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today, many of whom have taken part in the thorough determinations of the Committee. I am glad that we all agree that the report is a good basis for future action. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) set out the position of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with his usual eloquence and clarity. I am sure that the House will agree with his point that this debate is essential to democracy, and that his statement that it is important to build on what is tried and tested will prove to be correct.
I also share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend about the development of judicial review and the effect of the judgment in Pepper v. Hart. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that that was a bad judgment and other hon. Members have suggested that it was a good judgment. However, we are all agreed that it was an important judgment in taking forward the relationship between the workings of Parliament, the judiciary, the court system and Ministers and Back Benchers. The case certainly deserves consideration. It might well be a good thing to encourage Ministers to be more careful and more accurate in their answers in Standing Committees that are considering Bills.
One concern that has emerged from today's debate is the potential conflict between Parliament and the courts. We were privileged—in the ordinary sense—to have the benefit of the experience and wisdom of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I understand his point about the importance of penalties, but I do not understand the suggestion that a certain sum might have more value to Labour Members than to Conservative Members. As far as I am aware, all Members of Parliament who do not hold ministerial office have the same salary. Deprivation of a certain sum would have the same effect on everyone, in or out of Parliament.

Mr. Alan Williams: It was the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) who said that a


certain sum would be worth different amounts to different Members of Parliament. It was not my observation: I merely responded to it.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for elucidating that point. Perhaps I would agree with it if I won the lottery tonight and was, therefore, less concerned about how far my parliamentary salary would go next month.
I was pleased to hear the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who, as usual, brought wisdom and experience to our debate. I wholeheartedly agree with him about the vital and fundamental importance of freedom of speech. It might be our right now as parliamentarians, but it is our right only because it has been fought for over centuries on our behalf. Therefore, it is our duty to protect it. I hesitate to say this, because I have never found myself in disagreement with my right hon. Friend before and I am happy to take his advice on many matters, but I cannot quite agree with him on his proposal that the sub judice rule should be more flexible. That is another issue that calls into question the potential conflict between Parliament and the courts.
I was also interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon had to say about privilege at press conferences that happened to take place under the roof of this building. I disagree with my right hon. Friend on that point. People at press conferences in this building should not be subject to privilege in the same way as those who participate in proceedings in this Chamber, and other proceedings in Committees that are reported to this Chamber. That issue highlights another point of great importance that my right hon. Friend did not mention as such. When important matters are being announced, they should not be announced to press conferences in other Rooms in this building. Ministers should be questioned and held to account not by journalists in press conferences in front of television cameras, but by the representatives of the electors here in this Chamber. This is where matters Ministers should bring matters to the attention of the House or of the public. It is almost as important as freedom of speech itself that hon. Members should be able to question Ministers and hold them to account here in the Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon made a fourth good point on the same theme. Would the supposed bravado of journalists, to which some Labour Members referred, be so evident if they were to be brought to the Bar of the House to answer questions?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They would love it.

Mrs. Laing: The hon. Member for Workington says that they would love it, but, although they might want to feed off the publicity, would they love it in fact? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon distinguished between journalists and editors, and newspaper proprietors. If proprietors or editors wanted to publish a leaked report, it is possible that the threat of being brought before the Bar of the House would deter them. They are

used to saying, "Publish and be damned", but I wonder how they would feel about being held to account themselves.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The villain of the piece is not the journalist, but the Member of Parliament who leaks the document, and that is who should be held to account. The House has never been prepared to consider the possibility that leak inquiries should be carried out on oath. That is how we should tackle the leaking of documents. We should not penalise the people in the Press Gallery. There is no one there now, as is usual with the great and important occasions in this House, but that is another matter. We must avoid conflict with the press at all costs. Journalists are totally free.

Mrs. Laing: Once again, I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. If someone takes the responsibility of using a document—or any other item—that he or she has procured by false means, that person must take the risk of being held to account. The hon. Gentleman and I should perhaps leave this dispute to another day, but I agree with him about the importance of defending the freedom of the press.

Mr. Bercow: I fear that my hon. Friend was finding the arguments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) a little trying, but would she agree that it would be a matter of the utmost seriousness if the practice of journalistic freedom were to endanger people's lives—for example, the lives of witnesses to a criminal trial? Should we not deprecate such conduct?

Mrs. Laing: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I hope that we can continue this important discussion on another occasion.
It was also a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I can understand his unease about having a lawyer as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I am a lawyer—or was once—although I was never as distinguished as Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that peers remain parliamentarians, even after last night's sad events.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): indicated dissent.

Mrs. Laing: The Minister appears to question my use of the word "sad". Our history was changed in another place last night, and I believe that that was a sad sight. My point is merely that noble Lords are parliamentarians even when they are lawyers too, like many hon. Members.

Mr. Bill Michie: Don't call me a lawyer.

Mrs. Laing: I would not dream of insulting the hon. Gentleman in that way.
It was fascinating to hear the account of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne of the birth of the controversial Pepper v. Hart decision. I understand his reservations about the effect of that decision, but surely the process of interpretation by the courts is similar to the process of interpretation of the law in Committee. The Committee has a duty to look in great detail at the law


while it is being made. That is the duty of all of us who are legislators. The court has a duty to examine the precise words of the law as they are to be applied. However, the same standards should apply, as the meaning and complexity of the words do not change.
I agree that Finance Bills are often extremely complex. If the Pepper v. Hart judgment encourages Ministers to be more careful and precise in their answers to questions in Committee, surely that is a good thing.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have two brief points to make about Pepper v. Hart. First, it has had the good effect of causing Ministers to be careful in explaining the purport of a Bill, and certainly the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) did a magnificent job at the time of the case in 1976.
Secondly, it shows proper openness towards our debates. It is entirely right that the world at large should be able to read what is said and done in Parliament, and that the courts should be able to draw comfort from that, and assistance where that is available. However, courts have to be careful in the sense that it is often difficult to construe by a Minister's particular words—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention is far too long.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall cut myself short.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has finished.

Mrs. Laing: It is always a pleasure to give way to my right hon. and learned Friend, as he understands these matters extremely well. Perhaps I can return to this matter in a moment, and he can finish his point if I give way to him again.
Another point occurred to me as I listened to the description from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne about what happened in the Committee that gave rise to the Pepper v. Hart judgment. Surely the courts will consider the weight or significance of any fact, witness or evidence put before them. I venture to suggest that the explanations given by some Ministers—for example, by the right hon. Gentleman or by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—would carry more weight or significance than the explanations given by others whose grasp of detail may not be so sure. As ever, it is up to the courts to decide whether the evidence given under the Pepper v. Hart rule is good evidence, or not.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that Pepper v. Hart is benign because it enables a clearer interpretation of statutes by Parliament, although it should be used with caution? Does she also agree that it is benign because it offers no threat to proceedings in the House, in

comparison with my previous point about what is said and done in the House being used against an hon. Member in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings?

Mrs. Laing: Yes, I agree. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has had the chance to finish making his point.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) introduced an element of political correctness. He does not like the use of the word "privilege". I must disagree strongly with him. To speak in Parliament is a privilege that we exercise on behalf of the electorate. There is nothing politically incorrect about the word.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Parliament must be free from interference. In the 17th century, that interference came from the Crown, and that is why the Bill of Rights of 1689 was necessary. Other influences today may attempt to interfere with Parliament. One of the clearest examples from today's debate is the potential for conflict between Parliament and the judiciary, and the effects on our legislative and democratic processes of the development of judicial review. I dare to suggest that certain senior judicial appointments should in future be considered by Parliament. Some judges should not merely be appointed, but be subject to scrutiny beforehand. That would be an important safeguard of the separation of powers, one of the most important conventions of our constitution and safeguards of our freedom.

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Laing: I am told that I have taken rather a long time, so I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me for not giving way. Hon. Members are anxious to conclude the debate, and reasonably so.
A future committee might be appointed to consider scrutiny of judicial appointments. If freedom of speech for Members extends to the Chamber, should it not also extend to certain written correspondence between Members and Ministers?

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Laing: Of course I will.

Mr. Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend. It is dangerous of me to disobey the instructions of the Whips, but I do so in extremis. Does my hon. Friend agree that parliamentary scrutiny of future judicial appointments would be less necessary were it not for an exponential increase in judicial review and the recent passage of the Human Rights Act 1998?

Mrs. Laing: I agree entirely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I am sorry that he was not here earlier to make a full speech. Judicial appointments are extremely important and entirely relevant to the points before us.
It seems logical that if the words spoken in the House and questions answered by Ministers in the House are privileged, correspondence between Members and Ministers on matters before the House should also be privileged.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To some extent.

Mrs. Laing: That is fair enough. As the Joint Committee clearly enjoyed deliberating on the report before us, it may wish to consider the points that I have raised. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) suggested earlier—he has disappeared from his place, but I can see him—that he very much enjoyed the Committee's proceedings. We have enjoyed hearing his account of them. However, these matters are not merely matters of enjoyment, but matters of the historic development of our democracy.
As ever, it was a pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has already apologised for being unable to be here now. He, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, is a learned Member, whether or not he is entitled formally to the accolade. He makes extremely good points from his position as a practising lawyer. I understand his anxiety about the waiver of privilege proposed in the report, and about the consequent possible introduction of a party political aspect to these matters. However, I sincerely hope that he is wrong, and that those fears are unfounded. The House should continue to put the working of democracy and the dignity of the House above party politics.
The same applies to some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Workington. I hope that his concerns will also prove unfounded, but it would be bad for the House and for democracy if he and my hon. Friend were not wrong to believe that the proceedings of the House and matters of judgment of privilege will become party political footballs. I hope that both hon. Members are wrong.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire concluded with distinction that when we are considering amendment of such a fundamental piece of the democratic structure as the Bill of Rights—one of the foundations of our democracy and of the many democracies around the world that are based on ours—we must not become carried away. We must realise that the rights that had to be protected in 1689 were considerably different from those of 1999. It is a question of balance. The most important part of the Committee's report is on page 2 of the executive summary, which states:
The Joint Committee concluded that corruption, a serious and insidious offence, can only be dealt with effectively by using the police and the courts.
[Interruption.] No, it appears that whoever is missing cannot be found at all.
Change is a question of balance. In commending the report, we are giving up a little—

Mr. Bercow: Would my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Mrs. Laing: No, I must disappoint my hon. Friend. It really is time that I concluded. It is a question of balance

and, in commending this report, we are relinquishing some of the freedoms that were granted by the Bill of Rights many centuries ago.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mrs. Laing: I cannot give way even to my right hon. and learned Friend.
We are gaining a balanced privilege that is more relevant to the present day. There will be few prosecutions for bribery and other insidious offences through the courts. As the report says, the occasions when a court will be called upon to question a parliamentary proceeding will be rare. Therefore, I conclude that it is a question of balance and that the report should be commended.
Although this is an Adjournment debate, it is also a take-note debate and I hope that Parliament as a whole will have the opportunity to reflect on the many valuable points raised today.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has wound up the debate so comprehensively that there is little left for me to add. I noticed that she received a great deal of advice during her speech. In fact, I thought at one stage that she was going to talk about grammar schools in Boston and Skegness—but I have a feeling that the House may have missed the opportunity to discuss that subject tonight.
Like other hon. Members, I thank Lord Nicholls and the Joint Committee for their hard work. The report is extremely well written and easy to understand and I know that it has been well received, not only in this place but across the Commonwealth.
I was struck by Committee members' references to creative tension. Some Committee members were pressed men—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and, I suspect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—and others, such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), volunteered to serve. The subject clearly suited the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who made an important contribution to the debate.
It was clear from the speeches of those hon. Members who served on the Committee that they believe that the work is valuable. They are excited about this rather dry subject and their thinking has developed. Their enthusiasm spread to other hon. Members during the debate. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire said that the report has not received much attention, but I have a feeling—I will put it no stronger than that—that the report will develop a head of steam. This is the beginning of a very important debate.
The Committee report addresses Parliament, and Parliament must consider the issues and decide how to proceed. This debate has provided an important opportunity to listen to different views, of which many have been expressed. Some of my hon. Friends sought to extend the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was keen to add things to the Committee report, and we have noted his comments.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that the Government generally support the report. She put down only two markers on matters about which she required some advice. She flagged first the issue of relinquishing the power to imprison and introducing a fine instead. She asked candidly for different views on the subject, and that is what she got—there was no consensus in the House. We must take stock of the discussion and decide how to proceed.
There was also some argument about breaches and the early publication of Select Committee reports. We all accept that the person who leaks a report is liable to severe punishment, but I am not as convinced as some hon. Members that dragging journalists and even proprietors to the Bar of the House will have much value. I think that it will tend to pour petrol on the fire rather than extinguish it. Nevertheless, we sought views about this issue at the beginning of the debate and we must reflect upon the comments that have been made.

Mr. Bercow: I note the tender mercy that the Minister displays towards the journalistic profession—a tendency with which many hon. Members on both sides of the House would concur. Will he comment specifically on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)? She said that Ministers suspected of leaking Government or other documents should be obliged to respond to questioning and to do so under oath. If Ministers are not guilty, they will have nothing to fear from such investigations.

Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for 24 hours, he will receive the benefit of the advice that the Prime Minister intends to issue to Ministers. This is a trailer of coming attractions—it is a leak. The best is yet to come, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to watch the screen tomorrow.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Tipping: I must make some progress.
There has been much discussion of Pepper v. Hart, but no one mentioned judicial review except in passing. I believe that it is more corruptive and pervasive than the Pepper v. Hart judgment and I believe that we should reflect carefully upon the whole matter of judicial review. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has much experience in this area, asked whether Pepper v. Hart had changed the behaviour of Ministers in Committee. It is a question of balance: the Minister responding to questions must try to be open while providing correct and factual answers. It is important to strike the right balance.

Mrs. Laing: I agree with the Minister's comments about judicial review. As a consequence of judicial review, the judiciary is becoming more powerful and getting involved in legislating. Therefore, does the Minister agree that the judiciary should be subject to scrutiny before appointment?

Mr. Tipping: We can look at organisation in different ways. The current mood of the House is that Select

Committees, for example, should have a greater say in judicial appointments, and the matter deserves careful consideration over a long period. If the hon. Lady is seeking a personal opinion, I believe that we should have that debate; there is a lot to be said for reviewing our procedures. That is what we are doing today.
To return to Pepper v. Hart, we must recognise that Government lawyers, more than anyone else, like and rely on that judgment. Therefore, the Government have no intention of changing that convention, whatever the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might think. He did not like something so he wanted to turn back the clock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to turning the clock backwards or forwards in relation to the internet. He has conducted a long and strong campaign to make Select Committee proceedings available on the internet the following day and he is clearly making progress with Ministers' evidence. I believe that technology will drive change—it is sometimes irresistible. As we move through the information age, we will have to change our practices.
Other Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), referred to the difficulties that arise. These are complex matters. There is an understanding in the Chamber that we need clarity and certainty. People often tell me that they do not mind what rules there are, provided that they know for certain what they are. Those Members who talked about the need for clarity, certainty and transparency—for a clear and rational understanding that is not driven by political considerations—made some of the most important points of the debate.
It is essential to discuss the way forward. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that there was a general welcome for the proposals—the vast majority of the 39 proposals are acceptable. There are problems with some of them, but, with thought and discussion, those problems can be resolved. After the debate in this House, our colleagues in the House of Lords will want a similar debate. The point was made that these matters also affect that House. It will not be long before their lordships also discuss the report, although that is a matter for them.
Throughout the debate, reference has been made to the Law Commission's draft report on corruption. There is clearly a desire among hon. Members that it should not be kicked into the long grass, as one hon. Member put it. I assure hon. Members that that is not the case. The Home Office is actively working on the draft Bill, but it is still holding consultations. At this time of the parliamentary year, it would be most unwise—especially with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House sitting beside me—for me to give any indication of when legislation will be introduced. However, the matter has certainly not been put on the back burner.

Mr. Tyler: As the Leader of the House is sitting on the Treasury Bench, will the Minister tell us whether such a Bill might be a candidate for the pre-scrutiny review that we found so useful in a number of other non-contentious cases?

Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will see that when my right hon. Friend opened the debate, she pointed out that the matter was a clear


candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that it may be possible to produce a Bill in the not too distant future and to put it out for consultation, because although the issues are complex, it would be fairly easy to make progress on them.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire rightly pointed out that we could take some action now; he mentioned the laws on sub judice, although I think that that is one of the more difficult examples. My impression is that whatever action we took, matters would remain more or less the same, in that the Speaker currently has great powers of discretion. As everyone is aware, these are extremely difficult issues. The hon. Gentleman said that we could also make progress on giving advice to witnesses who appear before Select Committees. I think that we could make some progress in that respect.
However, the real way to make progress is to go ahead on the recommendations of the Joint Committee report—to task it either to the Modernisation Committee or to the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee is already following up some comments on parliamentary papers. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is minded to ask those Committees to explore those matters so that we can develop and implement good practice before introducing a new Bill—whatever it is called. It might be called the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, or it might have a more modern title if people would prefer that. However, we shall need more legislation.
Some Members pointed out that we last considered this subject in 1967, and that little progress has been made since that time. However, the Government set up the Joint Committee and asked it to undertake its work. We have accepted most of its recommendations; we are keen to make progress. It is important to modernise, but we should draw on our traditions. We must ensure that

Parliament as a body takes seriously its rights and responsibilities. The Joint Committee report is a cornerstone on which we can build.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Will he give—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Sir Peter Emery: By leave of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has finished.

Sir Peter Emery: By leave of the House—

Mr. Tony McNulty: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the House's pleasure that the motion be withdrawn?

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am putting a Question to the House. Is it the House's pleasure that the motion be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eight o'clock.